Slashdot Mirror
ID Tech May Mean an End to Anonymous Drinking
Anonymous Howard writes "If you visit a lot of bars and restaurants, you've likely crossed paths with driver's license scanners — machines that supposedly verify that your license is valid. In actuality, many of these scanners are designed to record your license information in addition to verifying them, and those that authenticate against a remote database are creating a record of when and where you buy alcohol. Not only that, but they're not even particularly effective — the bar code on your license uses an open, documented standard and can be rewritten to change your age or picture. Collecting our driver's license information is one thing, but collecting data about our personal drinking habits is not only a violation of, according to the ACLU representative quoted in the article, privacy and civil liberties, but this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases or evidence of alcoholism in divorce lawsuits."
Due to mounting pressure, purchases of all Frosty Piss, including steaming mug varieties, are now subject to mandatory ID recording. Our apologies for the inconvenience and we hope you enjoy your beverage.
The Beacon Hill Pub does this. Which is amazing, because they don't even have a telephone.
You need to re-read, sir.
For those of you in states where the license only has a magnetic stripe on it, and not a bar code, the magnets from inside hard drives do a great job at wiping out the data on the magnetic stripe.
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with this. Yes, it tracks what you do. A good majority of websites also do that, and who knows what they are doing with the data? Every time you browse PornoTube, you are being followed... watch out!
*Snore* Call me when they start tracking my credit card purchases -- Oh, wait!
Let me be the firth to shay that I welcome our (Hic!).... waitaminute...what was I shaying?
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
With this information employers could decide not to hire you if they felt you drank too much, in their opinion, or at all. Companies owned by fundamentalist christians, mormans or even muslims may decide to do this.
Additionally, insurance companies could drop you if they found out, for exaple, you were out drinking 3 nights a week.
If this info gets out it could have a huge impact on people.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'm of legal drinking age already and I haven't yet seen one of these machines in my area. But if I ever do, I'd like to have a false bar graph taped on the back of my license. Who will be the first to make a web site to generate these at will? And how long until that web site is labeled a terrorist act?
Not a typewriter
I'm all for personal privacy but I really can't see the loss of this sort of privacy outweighing the benifits of getting drunk drivers kept in jail or having a factual record for divorce hearings. When peoples safety and lives are at risk there needs to be some intelligent oversight of these issues but you can't have a blanket privacy enforcement. It just doesn't work. I think that a middle ground would apply, especially here. The database should require warrants and be overseen by a provacy advocate group as well as some seriously paranoid geeks for security. But the data should be there if required to prove innocence or guilt.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Well obviously part of the reason for this is lawsuits. Now should someone who drinks and acts irresponsabily have the right to be anonymous?
That's why I just keep a still running and do all of my drinking alone in the dark. I even use a tin cup to match my hat.
Bite my shiny, metal ass!
This is easy to work around -- just mark the bar code with a sharpie. The machine won't be able to read it, and they'll be forced to check your ID the old fashioned way.
What's the problem? I don't drink, so I have nothing to hide.
Grrrrrr.... Funny: me as a db admin -- creating databases for a living -- but I sure am against other peoples' databases. Ain't it a hoot?
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
My fraternity brothers are all married and I STILL NEED DRINKING BUDDIES!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And some businesses use this information to add to their marketing mailing lists. I know people who start getting snail mail spam from bars after their drivers license is scanned.
Developers: We can use your help.
Wouldn't the driver's BAC be the "smoking gun" in most DUI cases?
The evidence of an alcohol purchase isn't going to be remotely sufficient to convict without a BAC test, and the presence of a BAC test alone should be more than sufficient to produce a conviction. I honestly don't see where the purhcahse record could hypothetically fit into the equation.
If there's an argument for or against ID scanning, this isn't it. Even from the cops' perspective, this isn't even going to help them 'nab the bad guys' any more than they're already equipped to do.
Papers, please?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Don't go to those 'high tech' places. Go to the real gin joint down the street. Besides once you are a regular at a place they don't card you. I went to a place that rhymes with Drasy Conky on rte 110 in amityville, NY that had one of those machines. Next thing I know I'm getting all these advertisments for night clubs and bars sent to my home. Then my wife starts asking me all these questions about where I'm going. not cool.
Driver's license checks aren't mandatory in the state I live in (Kansas) ... it's been 10 years or so since I've been asked to show my driver's license, with the only exception being to board a commercial airline flight.
So apparently these machines aren't being effectively used yet for any kind of tracking purpose, as they'd only be capturing data for people under the "apparent age" of about 25.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Real alcoholics shouldn't worry about this. If you become a regular at a bar, the bouncers will not ID you every time, because they know you are over 21.
Alternatively, you could powder your hair, but that makes it harder to pick up chicks.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I personally don't drink, so I have nothing to worry about. If this is used to reduce drunk drivers or to find out what is the source of abuse, I'm all for it.
1) Why is it assumed that entering a bar automatically implies that you were drinking?
2) I find it really dubious that employers would ever get access to this sort of information and I think that it is unlikely that they would be allowed to use it without being sued.
While the potential exists for all sorts of "big brother" type applications, I find most of these scenarios to be somewhat far-fetched.
Don't make me use my other sig!!
When they started scanning your drivers licence when you drank. A little bit of vigilance could've seen this coming a mile away. Any time an institution has a new way to access personal data they will abuse it.
This is probably going to be coming over to the UK soon as well. They have become more tight on ID for clubs and bars to the point where only a specifically manufactured ID card, a drivers licence or a passport will do. Standardising ID is a precursor to this step.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
What's the point anymore? What with insane DUI penalties and rabid 'enforcement' bordering on entrapment, not to mention the publicity campaigns (posters all over town here saying, in big letters, "TWO DRINKS could MAKE YOU A FELON"), I've no desire to go to a bar. If I want to drink, I'll buy my liquor at a grocery store with a couple of $20s from my weekly 'petty cash' and I'll invite a couple friends over, or just drink alone. Sure, there's no playing pool or being hit on by drunk chicks, but there's also no loud, smelly football players drinking piss beer--that, and the prices are a lot better when I mix my own drinks.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
...but it won't stop me from taking 20$ from the kids standing behind the liquor store to buy them a case of PBR.
God bless their little, slightly drunk, souls.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Officer:"License and registration, please."
BEEP
"I see you had three martinis, two shots and bought a bloody mary for the dishwater blonde who dumped you to go to the park with the accountant."
You: "It tells you all that on my license?"
Officer: "No, I gave them a ticket for having sex in public while being ugly a few minutes ago. Now, step out of the car and put your hands behind your back."
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
As far as I know drunks and underage drinkers are not a protected class. Several companies will not hire you if you are a smoker, and it's legal for them to do so.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Likely? I do my fair share of drinking, and have never encountered an ID scanner outside of a convenience store, and I believe that they only read the magstrip and not the bar code. Unless these things are legally mandated, I can't imagine why a bar or restaurant would use one of these devices.
Just because I go into a bar, doesn't mean I am drinking. What if I am the DD? This just has bad idea written all over it. The scanner should be using this for verification only, and nothing else.
That is the end goal, where you cant do *anything* without it being tracked in some government database.
Even if what you are doing today is legal, it may not be tomorrow, and they will want records of it to hold against you. At the very least it shows prior intent.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Err, no, in Ohio actually. Around here there are a few bars that have taken to scanning the magnetic strip in our drivers license. Lucky for me, I have a few of those super strong neodymium magnets and have completely negated said magnetic strip.
They usually give up after about 15 swipes.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Everything's a violation of civil liberties according to an ACLU representative...
The bar code that looks like a Magic Eye picture is called a 2D barcode. There's mucho software out there that can decode and produce them.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
On the radio the discussion was about east coast bars swiping information, lying to the patrons and telling them it was for security reasons, to prevent re-entry of banned or troublesome former-patrons.
(Me here forward:)
The thing was, they were promptly selling this information to other parties who reprocessed it as thank you offers, happy birthday offers, coupons, ads etc with extreme precision because these companies had ALL the necessary information to reduce the cost of marketing these people. It also gave these marketers a way of upping the price/cost of information these marketers wanted.
Later, when I moved to Oregon for a year, I saw the cashier at a convenience store actually SWIPING the card of someone buying alcohol and I think cigarettes (it's been a while, so it could be the reverse or the checking of purchase of both...).
That turned me off. I don't recall buying alcohol myself at that mart. What I think is stupid is swiping the ID of someone who obviously is well above 25 or 30, and doesn't appear to be wearing spy or makeup-artist appliances.
I guess then that people with passports (I don't know if stores will try to scan these and if they can't then decline/refuse the sale) can present them instead of their driver's license.
Somebody needs to come up with a two-or-three-part license/age-verification/right-to-vote device/card so that for clubbing and purchases not involving checks or credit, only NAME AND AGE/DOB appear.
Then, for big-ticket items, the second part (matching) has to be presented to provide ADDRESS (Current and maybe 5 previous or 5-10 years of previous addresses based on reconciled IRS & quarterly payroll records for working/retired adults).
The THIRD part would be for retirement/pre-retirement benefits/public assistance receipt and cash-out of stocks/purchase of property and so on, that don't need to be passed on to anyone except government/law enforcement.
Maybe I've blurred some areas, but I'm ALL FOR saying "SCREW YOU" to clubs, bars, and any place scraping information they have NO business obtaining, possessing or reselling. If they want to ban patrons, then use imagery/facial recognition equipment at the point of ejection or to replay tapes of a confused situation/melee.
Anyone reading headlines about bar bouncers participating in assaulting or stalking of patrons can easily see how this 2-3-part identification deprives nosy bar or shop employees from gleaning residency information on cash-only patrons. It could possibly even work for police identification situations when the police stop is a graduated information determination: First: verify the detainee is NOT who your on the lookout for. If name is STILL too close a match, ask the detainee to produce part two.
Same could work for other scenarios. Use your imagination.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Pseudoephedrine (a.k.a. "sudafed") has recently been a target of several state and federal laws, due to the fact that bulk quantities of pseudoephedrine can be used in the manufacture of methamphetamines. As such, the amount and frequency of pseudoephedrine purchases are now limited in many location by law.
Virginia requires that one show an ID and address, so that records can be kept on sales (presumably to track compliance with the amount and frequency limits.) In a typical store (e.g. grocery store pharmacy counter), this is done in a log book, which requires the sales drone to look at your license and write down the relevant info.
However, at least drug store chain now has a scanner that reads the barcode on the back of the driver's license.
On one hand, the information must be collected by law; having a cashier write down the info is a hassle and slows down the purchase. The scanner really helps accelerate the process (and probably helps with compliance, too.)
On the other hand...I certainly hate the idea that it's becoming that easy to collect personal information. At least with a driver's license scan, I know when data is being collected. RFID on the license...the horror!
ed
So, my regular $192 Tuesday night tab has five cokes, thirty-seven beers, four martinis, a dozen shots of tequila and a small pizza...just so happens the networking meeting falls on that night and I happen to like coke with my pizza.
That does it, I'm just making my own moonshine in the basement and sneaking a flask into the bar.
"Just a Coke, please, I'm the designated driver!"
When are we going to decide that government is on a need-to-know basis, and when it comes to shit like this, they don't need to know?
It's a shame that most people are so docile and sheeplike that they will shrug their shoulders and say "well I got nothing to hide." Of course, that's not a complete thought. The complete thought is "well I got nothing to hide, so something as prone to abuse as unnecessary surveillance of a legal activity is OK by me!"
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Groups like MADD are the modern day puritans. They're not content with just protecting basic public order, but rectifying perceived personality flaws by using the state to remake society. MADD and those like them have never met a restriction on drinkers' rights they didn't find too onerous, short of the way that Sharia tends to punish drinkers.
I hate being reminded of the damage that alcoholics do as part of some stupid scheme to further erode basic rights. I grew up with an alcoholic father. Don't fucking remind me. There are only times I've nearly punched a girl in the face was when I had a proto-MADD member who didn't grow up in such a household piously get in my face saying that I didn't know what I was talking about WRT alcoholism and family life.
Yes yes, very few of you are lawyers, but I'm wondering what the legality of removing/obscuring the barcode so that it no longer scans.
The info is still there on the front of the license so a human can still read it (I swear I wasn't speeding, officer!). But you wouldn't end up as easily in the junk-mail databases.
Chip H.
Vote with your wallet. Don't give your money to institutions that use the scanner.
Of course, sooner or later it will become a legal requirement that all alcohol-vendors use the scanner, which will suck.
In my opinion, the potentially legitimate uses for this scanner do not even come close to justifying the potential abuses.
After a liquor store scanned my license without even asking my permission, I got ahold of a magstripe writer and deleted the data on my license's magstripe and wrote over it with my credit card. Now when I go out I can use the same card to get past the bouncer and pay the tab. Sometimes they look at me funny when I present my license for payment, but when they run the card the transaction is always approved.
Just re-write the data on the card to say something more interesting. Everything is stored plaintext. Just leave the birthdate intact and you'll be good.
;-).
And when i say rewrite the date...of course I mean "create another novelty ID to be used for testing purposes only"
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Anybody else read that as iD tech, as in the new naming scheme for iD software's game engines? It might put Jack Thompson, et al in a bit of a conundrum, on one hand computer games are training the kiddies to be murderers, but on the other hand they are reducing the drinking problem ;-).
You need to remember that a private establishment can refuse service to you for whatever reason they want. Also, the level of apathy in this country has risen to the point where no one except the few of us on slashdot cares about privacy.
The worrisome thing is not so much that this guy's driver license was scanned using a digital scanner, but that the data is shuffled off to a database somewhere to be mined. Imagine your insurance rates going up because the insurance company did not like what you had to drink the night before.
If there was enough of us around, I would be all for picketing an establishment to deter customers from going to it because of its data-collecting policies (that goes for those stupid supermarket cards as well). The only things that hurts a company is the financial or legal consequences of its actions. Unfortunately, laws need to be made for there to be legal consequences, and we all know that the current politicans are hopeless. So that leaves hurting a company finacially somehow through meaningful consumer actions. Otherwise you might as well blow off as it does not matter a whit.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I always get a little nervous about the combination of driving licenses and drinking. If they go through all the trouble of registering those licenses at the bars, please let them check whether the drinkers use it afterwards or not.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Oh, wait you meant identification tech. Stupid title got me confused...
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
It seems very very odd that in order to be able to drink somewhere you're going to get asked to prove that you'd be a danger travelling home if you were to do so?
I'm from the UK and have never had problems getting served with alcohol in the US without any photo ID (assuming I'm not carrying a passport around, which half the time I wouldn't be). I'm very obviously of legal drinking age, which helps. Sometimes you get some comic who asks to see a driving licence, but showing that there's no photograph on it usually makes them not bother asking further and serve you anyway. Once I explained how to extract the date of birth from the driver number on there (see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/DG_068315) and got the comment "You're not from round here, are you?". I still got my beer.
Welcome to the United Totalitarian America.
The terrorists, Communists, Nazis have silently won the war while you were watching Simpsons, played RockBand and craved for the latest about Paris. Are you happy now?
Let me just say really quick that these machines don't connect back into some uber secret underground database or anything. The magnetic stripe on the back of your license contains your address, your DL number, and your date of birth all stored in PLAIN TEXT! The "machine" that they scan it through is usually just a credit card reader that has a program on it to read the date. There is really nothing that evil here at all.
Everybody calm down!
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
We have two barcodes on our IDs. One 1D which only has the ID number the 2D has unencrypted driver's license or identification card number, the date of birth, the expiration date, and cardholder name as well as encrypted part which has address and other items. The law has made it illegal to decrypt the barcode except for law enforcement.
Ergo, if a bar starts sending you crap after you've visited you can assume they decrypted the info. However they could still track you for the "DUI" and "Divorce" with the ID number alone, but I guess more people are worried about the spam aspect.
Error: Sig not found.
I'm not worried. I switched to cocaine.
Patriotically forever,
"President" George W. Bush.
P.S.: Elections are fore losers
I'm glad I'm in New Zealand. Collecting driving license numbers without good reason is a clear contravention of the Privacy Act 1993.
Merely identifying customers isn't a good enough reason - the act is clear on that. And this is nothing to do with buying alchol in particular.
(Borders New Zealand got in hot water with New Zealand's consumer instutue, for example, for recording people's credit card numbers. They can't, you see, as NZ credit card terminals don't give them access to the cc number. Why do they need it? They don't! Transaction ID numbers are enough to proove the situation to the bank! That's the ethos behind the law; if you cannot justify collecting information, you cannot collect it.)
Our bouncers do *look* at drivers licences as proof-of-age. But they don't record any information about them anywhere.
(Anyway, knowing the driver's license number won't tell you my address to send me mail or anything else about me - all you have is a unique license-id. Companies simply don't have access to that information - only law enforcement. My license only has my address on it if I choose to put it on when I first got it, and it's not in the bar code anyway. And it's only a license-id, it can actually change if I replace my license..)
Don't drive drunk and don't be an alcoholic that ends up abusing your significant other. Problem solved.
go to your dingy dive bar down the street. a few pints why this is a good idea.
1. you wont associate yourself with yuppies and snobby bitches
2. you wont leave the bar with $80 tab
3. pints cost $2 or less
4. once they know you, showing id wont be nessasary
Am I the only one that thought they were talking about Rage?
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
That's right, they shouldn't dictate to you what you do when you're not at work. On the other hand, should you be able to force them to hire you, regardless? This brings into play both freedom of association and property rights. If I don't want to hire you because you smoke, tough cookies. Can I be forced to associate with you like that? Can I be forced to use my property (ie: my business) that way?
Oh, I forgot, most people don't really believe in property rights or any of those other important ones anymore. It's mostly that I'm free to do with my property as long as the majority doesn't decide to seize it from me, right?
"When peoples safety and lives are at risk there needs to be some intelligent oversight of these issues but you can't have a blanket privacy enforcement. It just doesn't work."
Where's an example of it not working? You want to keep drunk drivers in jail, here's a freaking genius idea that doesn't involve loss of privacy to people who haven't driven drunk... increase the mandatory minimum time for drunk driving offenses. Look at that, all without compromising the privacy of the majority.
As for "factual information in divorce cases", why stop there? If providing factual information in civil cases is a good reason to intrude on privacy, then everything you do ought to be recorded on the grounds that it could provide factual information for any given civil/criminal case you might find yourself in. It's the *exact* same reasoning and just as valid.
The ends doesn't justify the means.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
In California they use magstripe readers. Not that they can't be faked, but they take a little more equipment, and you can't really just paste one over the real stripe.
It's awfully damned easy to degauss the magstripe and make it unreadable.
http://pdf417-online.com/
print to a sticker and voila!
"Wouldn't the driver's BAC be the "smoking gun" in most DUI cases?"
.08% you should be taken to the hospital to have blood drawn for a blood test. But since this is too much of a pain in the ass for law enforcement, the legal system decided to give these machines the power to determine your guilt or innocence.
Pfft... Yeah, OK, you just keep on believing that. Just so you know, under the best of conditions the registered BAC is only accurate to 20% of it's real value. If a breathalyser suggests you are over the legal limit of
This is just another attempt to infringe upon your liberties and other hysterical and unconstitutional laws passed in the name of DUI. As far as the constitution, president Bush thinks "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
This has been going on in western Canada for years now - not in restaurants, but for admission to some clubs. The group/company, Barwatch, nominally suggest that it is "for your protection" to keep troublemakers out of clubs. Of course, the bouncers usually swipe your ID through the machine before you are even aware what they are doing. Yet another reason to boycott half the clubs in Vancouver. Fortunately it is mostly the ones with crappy music and aggressive jerks who use the Barwatch system.
By law, retaining and using this information is a felony.
So, while some national chains may think this is a great idea, they'd better start getting themselves fitted for orange jumpsuits, IMHO.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Please include your name, birthdate, and Social Security number with each reply.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
I live in Colorado where the drivers license has a magnetic strip full of personal information. As soon as I got my license I took a big-ass magnet to the strip. If they can't get the info off of the face of the card that they need, then they don't need it.
Unless you go out to the actual DMV databases to verify information, these readers are useless against any decent fake ID(even still you could use a real person's information with a different Picture). As mentioned in the article, PDF417 is an open standard, and any decent card printing program has the ability to create these automatically from the information that is typed on the front, same with auto-encoding of magnetic strip. More fun is that with good equipment, you can re-encode most Mag strips. Re-encode your Drivers license with your credit card for maximum convince, switch the numbers on all your friends credit cards, or encode a fun message for the bouncer on the back of your DL for your next time at the bar.
You'd be surprised at how often, "You know who you remind me of? Andrew Jackson," worked back in the day. I suppose it'd have to be "Ulysses S. Grant" or even "Benjamin Franklin" these days.
If someone doesn't smoke at work, doesn't preach at people, does their job, shows up on time, acts professional, etc, it should be none of the employer's business.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
...I brew my own beer. Screw 'em.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
The rights of people ought to trump the rights of corporations. Society exists to benefit people. Corporations are merely a means to make society more efficient and don't have any natural rights.
What?
/do/ get carded, usually its a swipe through a dumb machine that makes sure the information on the front matches the magstripe on the back. It doesn't connect to any database to check, not even, afaik, the ones at the PLCB Liquor Stores (Pennsylvania does not allow wine or spirits to be sold by private businesses).
I'm 21. When I
Not only that, how is this a problem for anyone over 30? Once you're that old, you're not going to get carded. Even for people like me, I haven't been carded in a while because I always go to the same places!
But say you moved: The database would say "Mr. Lynn drank heavily all over town for about 3 days, and then stopped drinking altogether." - What bartender cards you every time you come in? One at the bar I wouldn't be at!
I frequent bars. I don't drink. It's not that I _never_ drink, but if I were to divide the number of "drinks" I have ever had in public by the number of times I have been in a bar, the number would be non-zero but significantly less than one.
So the very fact that people think of this as a "drinking record" long before it is even a prevalent thing is disturbing in the extreme.
The dataset so generated is replete with "inferred fact" that is, in fact, not fact. (to alliterate nearly unto death 8-)
This is serious, and not just for the tinfoil hat crowd. The courts certianly accept data that "smells like evidence" as actual evidence with no information theory to back it up. See the copyright nonsense. See the very low bar that has been set to determine "intent to sell" especially with respect to LSD where the gross weight of drug and delivery method divided by the microgram weight of the dose, turns a guy with 6 hist of acid in his pocket into a "major distributor". (no really, look that one up.)
So these jet-fuel geniuses in court, and in your hr office, and your local child welfare office will be inferring alcoholism from barfly status.
Well, you either like booze too much, or pool too much, or talking to people too much, and since we suck at pool, and we are boring, you must be a drunk.
What a winner...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
This makes buying a round of drinks scary. You could buy a round for your friends and not even drink alcohol. Then have a minor accident on the way home and be grilled by the local cops because they could see that you purchased 7 drinks in the last hour.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
I love this one, they recently did it in PA.
But here's the catch: The power of addiction.
If the addicts all go up to the kitchen, and there's no meth to be had, the cook is going to say "All you addicts go and buy me 3 boxes today, 3 tomorrow at a different store, and you get a quarter off your next purchase."
Pretty soon there's gonna be a mile long line of meth addicts at the pharmacy.
They've done this in some cities here in Canada, but it's mostly to black-list trouble-makers. The bars got together and built a database to record, check, and block entry to bar customers who've started fights, carried guns, or got in trouble with the bouncers before.
Does that mean that I am not getting served at one of these places? My drivers license doesn't have any bar code on it.
When I go into the bar they don't card me.
Usually when I go they greet me by name, they clear off my table,
occasionally move the other customers to a different table
and sit a pint down in front of me.
I can't drink anonymously if I tried.
Give that the ID tends to be one's drivers' license (I like how people refuse an 'ID Card' but seem to think using a drivers' license for the same purpose is a-OK. Ahhh the USA and cars.), wouldn't having a damaged-beyond-recognition (be it manually or automatically) end up invalidating the ID? I.e. if some trooper were to catch you speeding (hopefully not while drunk), demands your ID, you give it to him, and his scanner can't read it - couldn't that just land you in more trouble?
Just curious, really... my old passport had its plastic bit broken off, I taped it back together and lo-and-behold, it wasn't valid and I get to get an emergency one or the U.S. would happily send me back on the next flight.. even though the plastic bit is the only important bit anyway (the rest being the paper pages with stamps, showing (somehow - can't say they're very clear stamps) what countries you've been to... much the same as reading the passport and getting that data out of the databanks does in the first place.
This differs from whipping out your credit card and running a tab how exactly?
Have gnu, will travel.
If they scan your ID, they know you were THERE.
If you buy liquor with CASH, the only way they can prove you drank (or bought booze, actually) is to ask eyewitnesses.
If you buy liquor with electronic means, then they can easily say "Hey, you were here, AND you bought booze" by querying databases. You suddenly become the result of a SQL query, effectively. A credit card purchase record would most likely give the SAME information, though, couldn't it?
Well, this is probably too hot to let sit in the Firehose, and maybe it's relevant:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ot/secure_driver_s_licenses
since I made a tangent in my comment in this article about ID Tech anyway:
" WASHINGTON - Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules to be unveiled Friday by federal officials.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Could someone please explain why restricting the sale of alcohol to those under 21 is worth all of the costs/consequences that follow.
Why can't we simply allow anyone who wants alcohol to buy it? Vendors can choose not to sell to certain people (ie. young children) and the public can choose whether or not to frequent businesses that sell alcohol. If a store is selling booze to eight year olds, then the public can simply boycott the business.
Sure some people become addicted to alcohol, but why should I be punished for their problems? Sure kids might obtain liquor, but surely parents are capable of addressing such a situation. Sure some people choose to drive drunk and get in a car accident that maybe kills someone, so arrest them for doing so.
By creating a system of laws around the consumption of liquor, we've simply given those in positions of authority new tools to oppress the masses. Liquor stores can be harassed by police sending in underage people. Motorists can be harassed with things like drunk-driving checkpoints. Businesses can be harassed by politicians on liquor control boards who demand bribes, kick-backs or "favors" in exchange for approving an application for a liquor license. Patrons can be harassed by establishments that resell the information on their identity cards.
I say eliminate the whole damn system. I find it doubtful that keeping it in place is less costly than doing away with it entirely.
but this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases or evidence of alcoholism in divorce lawsuits.
As opposed to the problems that the absence of such a record creates for the victims of repeat drunk drivers and spousal abuse.
I'm going on a limb being redundant here, but what the heck:
Just after we discussed "ID Tech May Mean an End to Anonymous Drinking"
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/10/2113240
We get:
"US to unveil key license rules Friday"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ot/secure_driver_s_licenses
"Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules to be unveiled Friday by federal officials."
"The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had a total of four driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, which was created in response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: "One driver, one license.""
What I think is crap about the "One driver, one license" (and I hope states fight HARD against it on THIS part to obtain accommodation/flexibility) is that some people who are a resident in one state start and maintain a business. That state may have a myriad of laws some of which requiring proof of identity. Also, some one who opens banking and other sensitive accounts in one name (say, someone legally modifies or marries and needs/desires a change of name) may need an audit trail of proof of identity.
Now, said person moves to another state, becomes a resident, and in theory, that state's DMV would seize the old ID and now their ID audit/paper trail is messed up.
The Feds OUGHT to do is (I suppose they already did) get a dump of all ID's and cross-reference them with the legitimately-obtained REALID issues but NOT take the old IDs away. This way, states which can validate/verify their prior issues can allow multi-state residents to satisfy banking/property/other legal issues.
Typically, California would punch a hole through the DOB on the ID obtained in another state when issuing a CA ID to someone who requested to retain their "foreign" ID. I gave legit reasoning and I was allowed to NOT have my DOB punched; I just marked it up NOT VALID IN CALIFORNIA so that if I ever went back to Oregon, I would be able to present both IDs and say, "Here, see, I am the same FACE, same DOB, same F/L NAME, Blood Type, etc."
I HOPE for the sake of those who have legit reasons similar to or better than mine can avoid ID audit trail issues. Some may say/ask "If all that's changed is address and state, then what's the big deal?", but some outside entities may decide THEY want to see ID they feel matches their own files.
As long as there's no fraud involved (and the involved entities determine that), then multiple, instead ONE ID or REAL ID should not be a problem. Still, each state will have its own requirements for demonstrating safer operation of a vehicle. Here is where driving demonstration needs to be separate from ID/Address/domicile/abode and right to vote.
I'll pause here...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases or evidence of alcoholism in divorce lawsuits."
Due process is one thing, but I hardly consider it a "problem" that a drunk driver loses his license or an alcoholic loses custody of his kids. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase? Or are you still hung over?
You're correct in that only real people have rights. The question is whether a potential employee has the right to force the owners of the corporation -- other real people, not a mere legal abstraction -- to hire it, which is in no relevant way any different than questioning whether it's right for a retailer to force you to buy from it against your will. The "rights of corporations" are merely a proxy, a convenient shorthand, for the collective rights of the corporation's owners. To say that "[t]he rights of people ought to trump the rights of corporations" is to say, equivalently, that the rights of one group of people (the employees) ought to trump the rights of a different group of people (the owners). You thus undermine a most fundamental principle of any free society: equality under the law.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I also heard hemp makes great shampoo.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
1. Carry a passport and use that as ID. For almost any purpose that does not require proof of authorization to drive or proof of address, that should suffice.
2. When you show your passport or ID in a bar or restaurant to prove your age, keep a hold on it! Don't let it out of your hand, let alone your sight.
Fizz
I don't get it, whats the problem if "... but this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases or evidence of alcoholism in divorce lawsuits."
This is not a Privacy case. Privacy happens AT HOME. If you are in your local pub that scans your ID, then what difference is that record to the bartenders oath? If you have a problem with the TRUTH, then DONT DRINK.
This Privacy thing burns my *SS because you people want your drinking records private, and that is happening in a public establishment. BUT you want to control the public establishment and limit smoking.
Get a clue. You can't have it both ways.
Really, this is paranoia to the Nth degree...
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Americans..
Your country is becoming a joke.
How you can so quickly go from the shining light of liberty to the depths of fear, cowardice, and willingly bending over and spreading wide for anyone who wants to check your intestines in the name of security is incredible.
Hopefully the rest of the world will see you as an example of what not to do.
You should listen to the words of your founders - "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I hope you like your nice safe padded cell with the men in coats to look after you.
Fortunately, they appear to be illegal in my state already: RSA 263:12, X, 260:14.
Liberty in your lifetime
Actually, I agree with you as long as we're talking about companies that are privately held by a few people. In that case, freedom of association wins.
Corporations, on the other hand, should be regulated tightly. Because they have a legal obligation to put profit ahead of everything else, and because they have so many layers of middle management, they'll do anything that'll increase the perception of profitability unless it's illegal. There's power without anything but financial responsibility, and unfortunately, lots of evil things don't have financial consequences.
If a person on the street can't help but bite everyone who he sees, he's insane, and we put him in a mental health facility. It's not his fault, but we need to remove some of his rights in order to protect society. The same principle applies to corporations: they can't help but be vicious profit-hungry monsters, so we must restrain them.
Once again proving Headlines are not news. RTFA idiot.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Seeing as how alcohol is a depressant and a drug, should we be happy that it's finally being treated as the dangerous neurological inhibitor that it is?
Consider yourself spoken to.
Corporations, on the other hand, should be regulated tightly. Because they have a legal obligation to put profit ahead of everything else
Actually corporations' first obligation is the advancement of the common or public good. Corporations were originally granted their charter for the public good but if the corporation no longer served that purpose the charter could be revoked. In 1602 the Dutch East India Company was granted a corporate charter, and was the first to issue stocks, for this very reason. And 2 year later the Honourable East India Company was granted the charter for the same reason.
Of course today corporations are no longer held to the stipulation that they improve the common good.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'd do it myself if I had any points left.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
I wish there were just one politician with the balls to be honest and say "yeah, I could say that this is for your safety or to help make the world a better place, but really we just want to invade your privacy so that we can have a society increasingly under central control." They are too cowardly to be so honest and it's fitting that they are elected by people too cowardly to value freedom more than security.
In a way Ron Paul said something like this. He was interviewed on CNN and he came right out and said point blank that if he were elected president one of the things he would do would be to pardon people in prison for drug offenses. I'm not sure exactly who he meant but from what he said I think that he meant those who were busted for possession and were users.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Frankly I think society is far too permissive of alcoholism and drunk driving, and I'd like to see that changed.
I too would change the law, but I'd do it differently. I'd lower the legal blood alcohol level and make it harder for someone convicted of dwi/dui to get a new license. You may do the same but here's what I'd change you may not agree with, I'd allow parents to order and serve alcoholic beverages to their minor children, both at home and while dining out.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wait, not particularly effective?... I thought "open, documented standards" were good things. OH NO I DIDN'T.
Not the privacy issue; it's bad for bars to be surreptitiously recording their patrons identity, whether they do it with a scanner or if they just write down names when they check IDs -- forget the technology, it's creepy regardless. But the underaged drinking issue is win-win. The bars win because if they scan the IDs and they come up good, they've checked the ID and are protected from punishment for serving minors. The underaged drinkers win because they get served. And the geeks making the fake IDs win, because it's easier to make working fakes if they're just going to be run through a scanner and not closely examined.
It's still early in the year, give it more tyme.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The Feds OUGHT to do is (I suppose they already did) get a dump of all ID's and cross-reference them with the legitimately-obtained REALID issues but NOT take the old IDs away. This way, states which can validate/verify their prior issues can allow multi-state residents to satisfy banking/property/other legal issues.
BS! The feds not only have no reason to do this but also has no constitutional authority to do so. You want to give the feds that authority then propose an amendment to the constitution.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's because weed wasn't legal when they made alcohol illegal ;-)
If by "weed" you mean hemp aka marijuana, it was legal prior to and during Prohibition. Prohibition in the United States was from 1920 to 1933. Hemp was made illegal by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Prior to it's passage hemp, those who demonized it called it marijuana, was perfectly legal. Many of the USA'a Founding Fathers even grew hemp on their farms. Thomas Jefferson once said farmers should be required to grow hemp, however because he knew such a law would limit farmers' right he never proposed it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, what needs to happen is a little education of the public and then vote with your feet. I still will not enter a store because they use ID scanners. I have absolutely no problem driving out of my way to an Apple Valley liquor store to buy beer because they don't scan. I still tell them, every time, that I'm there because they protect my privacy.
Apple Valley? Over on Lyndale a few minutes walk I know of two liquor stores, a few of bars, but mostly some cafes. I've been in one of the liquor stores and they don't card, well they haven't carded me. Then again right up the road is that college.
FalconShould there be a Law?
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
Absolutely not. I think personally it's kind of fucked up for a company to not hire you based on smoking habits, but then if you think it's wrong just don't work for that company. Honestly, racism is absolutely stupid to me but if a company doesn't want to hire someone based on race, that's their choice. This is the land of choice. If you want to be racist, that's fine as long as it doesn't infringe on others. I'd say your own business doesn't necessarily infringe on others; They choose to deal with you or not. If I'm paying you, you're damned right I'm going to take EVERYTHING about you into account. It's my money, why should the government have a say in how I spend it?
:(){
I have never seen any bar using a barcode scanner to scan drivers licenses. I don't have any barcodes on my drivers license. And for most people it makes no sense to bring a drivers license when you're drinking (don't drink and drive), so any scheme that requires a driving license as identification is beyond harebrained. Let me guess, this is a US-specific article?
The open society has always been under attack. Mostly by social conservatives, but from the left as well. The whole opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and the idea that you can't discriminate against blacks in hiring, is couched in terms of "employers should be free to hire who they want..." and so on. But then there's my Klan example above, and I can't say that I wouldn't discriminate against someone I felt to be a racist, or a homophobe.
How do employers deal with the 'evangelizing at work' thing? How do you convey in an interview "we want Christians working here, but keep the proseletyzing at home"?
"this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases" I mean, I can see some other reasons that this might be a bad system, but I don't think this is one of them ...
Civil disobedience is breaking the law. Thoreau and MLK both broke the law, deliberately, to highlight that the law was unjust. That is civil disobedience. You're welcome.
One of the things that has been interesting to me here is the difference of how prohibited goods like alcohol and cigarettes are treated in terms of minors.
Yea, when I was there parents could legally order and serve their minor child an alcoholic drink. I found it natural to see someone order a glass of wine or a beer for a minor. Try that in the US and you'll be lucky if you're not arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and lose custody of the child.
I must say, I always get screwed when I come back to America to visit and try to go to a bar or buy beer, because I have completely gotten used to not having to bring an ID with me, even though I am clearly over 18/21.
It bothered me some when I was with some friends and we went to a bar (in the US), though I could be the oldest person I'd be the only one carded. This happened even when I was in my 30s and I had a beard.
In Germany, you only have to be 16 to buy alcohol. There is talk of raising this (and the cigarette age) up to 18, but frankly, it won't make much of a difference given the easy access to either substance. The really [i]nice[/i] thing about this is that you are therefore of drinking age before you are able to drive. Thus, by the time that kids learn how to drive, they've already learned how to hold their liquor, and are less likely to make a stupid mistake like getting behind the wheel.
That's why I oppose laws making it illegal for parents to serve their children alcohol. There's a big difference between letting a teenager sip alcohol some and letting them drink so much they get drunk. Allowing them to drink a little allows them to get used to drinking responsibly. In the US though it's not uncommon for a young adult to go a on a binge and drink too much once they reach the age of maturity.
none of that 3.2% crap
My fav beer there was a smoked beer. One of the the things I brought back with me was an empty 1 letter bottle I got at a festival. I also brought back a love for espresso and I ended up filling the bottle with some to take with me to many places. And straight not au lait, with milk.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This supposed system uses drivers license information, so hand them your passport (you have a passport right?). I'm willing to bet this "system" isn't set up for passports (yet).
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
Apparently Someone has an axe to grind......from the Mfr's site,Need I say more?
Jeffrey Levy, age 64, was elected a director in December 1999.member of the United States Air Force from which he retired as a colonel in 1988.
He serves as a board member of the Northern Virginia Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Washington Regional Alcohol Program, the Zero Tolerance Coalition and the National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month Coalition and is a member of the Virginia Attorney General's Task Force on Drinking by College Students and MADD's National Commission on Underage Drinking.
In NY State, the law is very clear. Most of the data can't be retained, and that can be, can't be s
http://www.hawknest.com/
You couldn't even tell if you cross-referenced with credit card information. One mixed drink might cost the same as two beers or four sodas, so anyone looking to use that info wouldn't be able to prove that the individual who went to the bar actually drank.
I bet the America West pilot and co-pilot who received prison sentences for attempting to fly an Airbus while both were drunk wish they had paid cash for that infamous $142.28 bar tab.
Oh the irony.
"if a company doesn't want to hire someone based on race, that's their choice."
Really? Is that how it works? And what about when everyone takes that choice, as happened in the past?
Your free market is not as self rgulating as you like to think, nor should it be allowed to run entirely free.
Brownies FTW!!!
weve had these up here for a few years now and I'll let you in on what we did about bars that got these. we dont go in. ever again. we close any bar that has an ID scanner. after a few got closed down because of these they started getting the hint and a few places removed them. You dont find them anymore in the good Clubs in toronto.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
While it's highly objectionable to collect this sort of information in the first place, it's clear from history that the vast majority of citizens won't object until it starts to be misused. If citizens do begin to find that they are forced to register purchases of certain types of goods that are later used to convict them, publicly impugn their reputation or otherwise persecute them, it stands to reason that a black market for such goods would arise in conjunction with public outcry. Additionally, as a homebrewer, I can tell you it's incredibly easy to ferment alcoholic beverages and simple even to distill them to higher concentrations of alcohol (especially by fractional freezing), so if your concern is simply the procurement of alcohol without registration of some sort you have nothing to fear.
The point to be taken away here IMHO is that practices of this sort lay bare the Puritanical and authoritarian undercurrents in American society and government insofar as collecting/using this information further demonizes a form of established social interaction that has been practiced throughout the known world for all of recorded history. American government tends to be overly concerned with ensuring that the populace is more highly policed when it should be concerning itself with its citizens' wellbeing, and tends to perpetuate the cycle by creating an environment of fear in which the populace can be more easily convinced that surveillance, etc. are necessary.
Fear is the mind-killer.I live in the US and quite frankly, I've never seen one of these scanners. I wouldn't swipe my drivers license through it either for the reasons the article mentions. However, if you need to show ID, any ID will do. I myself always have my Permanent Resident card on me (it's also an ID, issued by the federal government nonetheless) as well as other things that state my birthdate and stuff.
If they want to know, they can manually check it, if they insist on entering my information in a database, too bad for them, I can drink a lot and don't mind dropping a $100 to eat and drink for two persons and I'm a good tipper too.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The goal with identity management is to be able to check certain tests (is age >=21?) against an identity without doing the full identity attribute tree. There will be different message types, etc. etc. The goal is to have a real scalable, extensible identity management framework, not just a bunch of 1-offs which do more than what passes as "need-to-know".
Hope that makes sense.
Fortunately for anonymity, the AA is not about anonymously drinking but about anonymously *not* drinking.
-An anonymous non-poster.
Whether or not what they do is "evil" (a purely subjective term), if they aren't violating the rights of others -- i.e. doing something that is rightfully illegal -- then there's no justification for violating their rights in turn. Actions taken on behalf of hundreds or thousands of shareholders are in this way no different from actions taken by any individual.
I would not agree that locking someone up in a mental institution is a reasonable or justifiable response to a physical assault such as biting. A "mental health facility" can be a wonderful tool, but only when the patient chooses to employ it. To arbitrarily label someone "insane" and force them to enter such an institution for the purpose of remaking them into someone more suitable to yourself is to treat a human being as if it were merely a misbehaving performing animal, incapable of self-determination. A far more humane response would be to allow the offender to choose whether the assault is to be considered an accident or a deliberate action, the former being represented by checking himself into such a facility and the latter carrying all the normal penalties of an intentional assault.
Anyway, the whole argument is irrelevant here because the owners of the corporation, while often irresponsible, are clearly not insane. If in the course of seeking profits they cause harm to someone else, then they must make good the damage caused just as any individual would in the same circumstances; in no event does the mere fear of future harm justify the removal of present rights.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I'd just like to point out that buying a drink DOES NOT EQUAL drinking a drink. I can go to the bar and spend a lot of money buying every pretty girl I see a drink WITHOUT drinking a drop myself. Or, I can spill all the drinks I buy (on purpose or not). Or, maybe it's my night to buy for my friends and I'm the designated (sober) driver.
Even an eyewitness cannot verify that there's rum in my Coke.
You get refused service, but hell, there is another bar just up the street that serves the same alcohol.
... or bicycle to a bar.
There's an unstated assumption in the article (and in the alleged practice), that people will routinely carry their driving license with them when going out. Assuming that they have a driving license - which not everyone has. It also assumes that the criteria for getting a drink are similar to those for getting a driving license.
Is the driving license being used as a de facto State Identity Card? Of course it is. Stupid. Inaccurate. Non-universal. Easily-forged. Can be removed from a person by administrative fiat. Contains irrelevant information. Certainly seems to have all the characteristics necessary for a State Identity Card.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I wonder where everybody has been. They have been collecting data on you for years. Just what do you think you are doing when you use one of those grocery cards?
Use a credit card to pay for purchases? They have all that data, and they use it.
Linking purchases with identities has been going on a very long time now. People have not been paying very much attention to it.
It may have been true that with cash at a bar, you could conduct your business anonymously. However, the push to link all transaction details with an identity is just too tempting for data miners, and puritanical special interests. Under the guise of protecting society there are now forcing even cash purchases to be verified and recorded.
I'm shocked, not that this is happening, but that it is news to some people.
...really, guys, I just bought the 20 shots for the house.