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."

30 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Frosty Piss, now checking for ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  2. t has to be said up front by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  3. And impact employment and insurance? by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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+
    1. Re:And impact employment and insurance? by Pojut · · Score: 5, Funny

      Companies owned by fundamentalist christians, mormans or even muslims may decide to do this.


      Which is silly, considering alcoholic drinks were first conceived by holy men...
    2. Re:And impact employment and insurance? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Additionally, insurance companies could drop you if they found out, for exaple, you were out drinking 3 nights a week.

      Yeah, man, I hate when they accurately judge my risk of an accident and prevent me from leeching off of safe drivers.[1]

      [1] Assuming frequent drinkers really are more dangerous as per actuarial tables, which may or may not be true.

    3. Re:And impact employment and insurance? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because weed wasn't legal when they made alcohol illegal ;-)

      Really, if you look at the effects that it has on people, combined with the uses of each product (other than drinking, alcoholic beverages don't really have much of any other use...whereas marijuana/hemp has THOUSANDS of uses) it would have made more sense to keep marijuana legal than to keep alcohol legal...

      http://norml.org/

      Do your part in helping to end the prohibition of Marijuana and industrial hemp.

    4. Re:And impact employment and insurance? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So? What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't a company be able to decide such a thing? Should "Bob's Morman Supply" not be able to say something like that? Would about "Bob's Office Supply"?

      It may be illegal now (the ACLU would certainly argue for that), but I don't see why a company shouldn't be able to do that.
      Allowing corporations to control your lifestyle while away from work is very dangerous. Regarding alcohol, the only legitimate concern of a company I work for is that I am sober when I show up for work and remain sober while I am on the clock. This is the time that they pay for, and they have a right (within limits of course) to determine what I do or don't do during that time. What I do in my private, off-time that they are not paying for is absolutely none of their business. Trying to monitor what I do during my private time away from work is nothing but an invasion of privacy that should never be tolerated for any reason. I honestly can't understand why there is even a discussion about this; it's patently obvious.

      This is all fine with me. I can understand why many people wouldn't want this, and I wouldn't push it. But if we keep records to make it easier to convict drunk drivers or people who aren't supposed to be drinking (like perhaps because of some prior conviction where that was made a condition of probation). Those are both fine for me.

      Law enforcement is not supposed to be easy. One description I have heard of fascism is when the desire for efficiency of law enforcement outweighs any concern about civil rights. Judges (or whomever) may set a nearly-unenforcable condition for a probation if they choose to do so -- that is not my problem. It certainly does not give them or anyone else the right to invade my privacy for the sake of making their job easier.

      Also, this will do nothing or next to nothing to stop drunk drivers. So this database can confirm that someone was at a bar and had an alcoholic beverage. It will not confirm whether they drove to the bar, walked to the bar, took a cab, or had a designated driver. So if a crime is committed, this will tell you even less than what could be learned by old-fashioned policework, i.e. interviewing witnesses.

      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.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  4. Target for Some Civil Disobedience by hardburn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Target for Some Civil Disobedience by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is not civil disobedience; it's breaking the law.


      Civil disobedience is nonviolent refusal to comply with a law or command of government, either because the law or command itself is perceived as unjust or because or because the government issuing the law or command is viewed as illegitimate independent of the merit of the particular law or command.

      So "That is not civil disobedience; its's breaking the law" reveals a deep misunderstanding of the entire concept of civil disobedience. That's not saying one could not argue that the form of disobedience suggested is a poorly chosen and/or ineffective method of civil disobedience.
    2. Re:Target for Some Civil Disobedience by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Lakeville Liquors just built a new facility less than a half mile from my house. I walk by it daily and am proud that it joins the ranks of Starbucks as an establishment that I will never step foot in.

      In addition, I have used a high powered earth magnet on my ID's magnetic stripe rendering it useless in any scanner including the cops (who asked me to get a new ID because it was "worn out"), the smoke shop (for cigars), or anywhere else that feels the need to scan ID.

      If enough people realized what those machines did (I make sure to tell everyone around me when I see one being used before walking out) then businesses would stop using them because less people would enter the store. Sadly I'm dreaming about that because no one cares.

    3. Re:Target for Some Civil Disobedience by parcel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but you're completely mistaken. A law being unjust is not justification for breaking. Tell that to Ms. Parks.
    4. Re:Target for Some Civil Disobedience by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, but you're completely mistaken.


      Sorry, but, no, I'm not.

      A law being unjust is not justification for breaking.


      You are welcome to your opinion of what justifies breaking a law; that's completely irrelevant to the point on which you claimed I was mistaken.

      Civil disobedience is refusing to comply with a command of government (including, but not limited to, a law) as a way of protesting the injustice of either the command/law, or the claim to authority of the government issuing the command/law. Whether civil disobedience is justified, either in general or in any specific case, is a matter of opinion, and irrelevant to the discussion of what civil disobedience is.

      My stance is the one used in the Civil Rights movement, by Gandhi, etc.


      No, its not. Neither Gandhi nor the Civil Rights Movement took the stance that the injustice of law cannot justify breaking them; both, to the contrary, to the position that the illegitimacy of law (either because of the illegitimacy of the authority issuing it, in the case of Gandhi's anti-colonial movement, or because of the injustice of its content, in the case of Civil Rights Movement) could justify breaking it in certain, non-violent ways.

      Take it up with any PoliSci professor and you'll see that I'm right.


      Unlikely. At least, none of the ones I interacted in the course of getting a Bachelor's degree in the field ever had your rather unique views on those movements. Perhaps you should consider, though, some more direct source material, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

      You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. [...] The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a more responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."


      The act proposed upthread may fail to be proper "civil disobedience" because it isn't open defiance of the law with acceptance of the consequences, but it certainly doesn't fail because it is breaking the law. If it wasn't breaking the law, civil disobedience would instead be called "civil obedience".
  5. That's why by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  6. They should make the database public by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  7. Re:rights vs records vs privacy by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. That's all well and good if we could ensure that it would be used in only this way, but the sad reality is that a system like this will almost certainly be abused. The minimal benefit a system like this may provide isn't worth the risk of abuse.
  8. Re:Huh? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A good majority of websites also do that, and who knows what they are doing with the data?

    Really? Web sites track my behavior and correlate it with my name, address, date of birth, and (last I checked in some states) my social security number?

    Doesn't sound too kosher to me.

  9. That's why I only drink at seedy bars by p5linux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. No need for police to ask if you drank tonight. by xC0000005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  11. In Soviet Russia by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  12. Re:rights vs records vs privacy by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's pretty ridiculous. You could make the same argument about any data. Just think: if we put a GPS receiver and a radio transponder in everyone's car, we could compile all sorts of interesting data! We'd be able to tell if someone was speeding or driving aggressively, if they commit a hit-and-run, if they're cheating on their spouses ... heck, we could even get rid of all those traffic helicopters. Does anyone think that's not a really fucking terrible idea? It would be an unbelievable mass invasion of privacy.

    Lots of information has the potential to be useful. That's not enough, by itself, to invalidate the very serious privacy concerns.

    Anytime you start collecting information in advance, "just in case," you're fundamentally doing something wrong. You're treating innocent, honest people like criminals in order to make life marginally easier for the cops. If that's what people in law enforcement say they need to succeed, then we need to fire them and get some more innovative law enforcement, and give them better resources -- not twist our society around backwards in order to make their jobs easier.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  13. I remember hearing in 2002 about this by davidsyes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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"
  14. Re:Huh? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The bigger issue is that it's not hard to tie all of this data together to get a picture of a persons live, less their privacy. Lets just say the RIAA pumps an extra million bucks into some senators reelection fund and manages to get a bill passed that makes it a crime to purchase more than 500 pieces of recordable media a year (without some sort of license).

    It would be very easy for the government to subpoena the records of all the major chain stores and very quickly have a list of people who broke this law. They could even write it into the law that it's retroactive to some date. Or how about people who also have netflix accounts and own a DVD writer and have purchased DVD-R media in the last year... Even if it's not a technical "crime" they could probably sue you in civil court with a "Pay us 5k and we'll go away" shake down game.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  15. Re:rights vs records vs privacy by masdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that this system will only be able to prove that you were in the bar, not that you were actually drinking.

  16. Thank MADD and those like them by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. I rewrote the magstripe on my license by imuffin · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  18. Re:God dammit by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "I once attempted to buy a twelve-pack at a gas station in Rochester, NY. At the time, my license had a magnetic strip and not a barcode (I do not live in New York), and they wouldn't sell the beer to me because they couldn't scan it with their reader. Luckily, I was with a friend who had a NY license."

    Ok...I was guessing this was more of a northeastern type thing. I get the feeling they're really MUCH more hung up on drinking laws up there. You mention having two drinks and driving home up there, and people I talk to get their panties all in a wad. Much more relaxed down here in the SE...hell, we even have drive through daquiri shops here where I live, and until 4-5 years ago I think it was, we didn't even have an open container law here.

    Anyway, I've noticed over the years that the NE is much more uptight about liquor laws than in the SE. I'm not sure how bad it is out west, but, I hear it is pretty bad out there too.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  19. Re:DUI? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an American expat living in Germany. 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.

    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. The annoyance of this, and the fact that the establishments are only enforcing the rules out of fear that I'm an undercover cop, add to the ridiculousness of the rules.

    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.

    I used to live in Indiana for five years, where the drinking age is of course 21. The number of drunk driving accidents I witnessed or heard about via people that caused them was substantially higher than in a place where alcohol is proudly sold every day and hour of the week (if you know where to get it), at gas stations (heh), movie theaters (which really rocks btw), and supermarkets (and none of that 3.2% crap, either). There is an obvious conclusion to all of this -- people like to drink, and they're going to do it anyways, includng kids. It's better to create an atmosphere where people learn how to handle this responsibility, and are encouraged to enjoy it without risking the lives of others.

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  20. Re:God dammit by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mention having two drinks and driving home up there, and people I talk to get their panties all in a wad
    There's a fairly standard joke out here in Australia about you Americans and your drink (actually there is heaps of them) let me relate two:

    "If I drank this much in America I would be an alcoholic, in Australia I'm a fucking legend"
    "What do a fisherman in a boat and American beer have in common? They're both close to water"

    So I'm almost completely off topic, but just wanting to point that out.
    --
    Me failed English...
    FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  21. Re:Not dictate your actions, just not associate wi by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. So do you think it's fine to not hire someone because they're Christian, Jewish, Atheist, etc? IMHO, if someone is qualified for the job and keeps their personal and business lives separate, there shouldn't be an issue. If I wanted to smoke (I don't, btw, never have and never will) after a stressful day, that's my business. Not the employers. If the company doesn't want their employees smoking on the premises, near the premises, in uniform, etc, I feel that's completely acceptable.

    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? I'm not saying employers have to be forced to hire smokers. I dislike laws like that. I have zero issues with the employer not allowing smoking during work hours. The issue I have is employer restricting what people do in their own time.

    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. -
  22. Re:God dammit by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've always heard it as "What does having sex in a canoe have in common with Bud Light? They're both fucking close to water"