Bars' Scanning of ID Violates BC Privacy Laws

AnonymousIslander writes "The Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia has ruled that electronic scanning of driver's licenses (and similar forms of ID) as a condition of entering a bar or nightclub is a violation of BC's Personal Information Privacy Act. The decision (PDF), while dealing with one specific club, will still have ramifications across the entire province. It is not known if the nightclub in question will attempt to appeal the decision in court. A similar decision was reached last year in Alberta. The system in question is known as BarWatch, and has been the target of criticism by many for a number of years. Despite this, a number of bars/nightclubs and restaurants in communities across Canada have installed similar systems, and just days before this decision came down there were calls for the expansion of BarWatch in Victoria to cover restaurants and other establishments serving the post-bar crowds." Similar systems are in use across the US, as we have discussed.

Comments

Liability

[sanosuke001]

A bar should not be liable for someone using a fake ID that looks real. If the ID looks genuine, the picture looks like the person using it, and it says they are of age, that should be as far as it needs to go. If the person gets caught, they should have to take responsibility for their actions. Why did bars think this system was a necessity in the first place?

Re:Liability

[sanosuke001]

I just wanted to make it clear that my last question was rhetorical. I know what the reason was; and this privacy issue, as good a reason as it is to get this system out of bars, shouldn't have occurred in the first place.

Re:Liability

[garcia]

Why did bars think this system was a necessity in the first place?

Because those boxes store the personal information of the IDs that are scanned, usually in an XLS file which are easily shared across businesses or used for selling information to third parties--that's why.

Re:Liability

[thenewguy001]

I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but this barwatch program in BC was enacted in response to a rash of nightclub shootings in recent years in which gang members got into fights with other patrons or were killed in targeted hits in which innocent bystanders were wounded or killed. The ID scan is to identify persons known to police in a database and refuse them services or entrance to the premises. The ID scan itself is already of shaky legal status, but the most troubling issue here is that the ID information from the scan (name, address, etc) is retained by the club in a private database.

Re:Liability

[markdavis]

So it has nothing to do with trying to enforce drinking ages. Instead it is just more "paper's please" government tracking of citizens.

I am sure that will make everyone there feel even better about being branded cattle...

Re:Liability

[v(*_*)vvvv]

that should be as far as it needs to go

Yup. And most bars know that as far as I know. This is how under-aged people get in so easily, and bars get away with it. They check the age, and the quality of the card. They don't really care if it is real or not.

These guys scanning are scanning to retain information. If they weren't, then they're working too hard for no return.

Re:Liability

[Korin43]

I don't know how it is in Canada, but here if a bar gives alcohol to someone underage (even if they have the most perfect ID ever made), they can still get fined and lose their liquor license.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of this system is so they can flag patrons who cause problems, and ban them from every bar instantly. The police also like it so they can figure out who your acquaintances are to combat the non-existent "gang" violence we have here in Victoria. It's all about big brother and tracking. This system has nothing to do with liability whatsoever. That part of the story was only mentioned AFTER they had problems with the privacy laws.

Re:Liability

[hysma]

So it has nothing to do with trying to enforce drinking ages. Instead it is just more "paper's please" government tracking of citizens.

I am sure that will make everyone there feel even better about being branded cattle...

Nope, that all came after the Privacy Commissioner did his investigation. Originally the police were all about this how it would help them track down gangs and the clubs were all about how this would help them fend off repeat trouble makers.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mostly to do with Asian and East Indian gangs, and it's only in certain, known bars where they hang out (bars that have "gone Asian", in local parlance). Before the mass immigration of the '90s, stuff like this was unknown here, and we existed in a naively happy bubble.

And this is not a troll, by the way. BC has changed a lot, and not for the better, even though it's "evil" to say so.

- posting anon to avoid the beating I'll get from PC people

Re:Liability

[boris111]

The ID scan itself is already of shaky legal status, but the most troubling issue here is that the ID information from the scan (name, address, etc) is retained by the club in a private database.

I have received junk mail as result of my ID being scanned at a night club in PA. Luckily that night club has since closed and I no longer receive it. Ironically, they had to close because of fines from serving too many underage drinkers over time. They also lost business because of regular police raids. Who wants to keep going to a club where there buzz is killed from a police raid.

Re:Liability

[commodore64_love]

>>>The ID scan is to identify persons known to police in a database and refuse them services

Illegal search by the government without warrant.

Re:Liability

[MillionthMonkey]

Why did bars think this system was a necessity in the first place?

• To keep out people such as myself who have occasionally had heated yet articulate discussions with other bar patrons regarding legitimate personal issues of great interest.
• So they can send "targeted" junk mail. For example, I've been getting catalogues from companies selling brass knuckles, guns, pickup trucks, and fish stickers (you stick them on the back of the car and they have magnetic ones too). It's hard to resist spending money.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

In Victoria it's definitely quieter, sure, but It's faaar from non existent elsewhere in the lower mainland.

Re:Liability

[jeffliott]

Wait...There are gangs in Canada? What is the world coming to?

Re:Liability

[Icaarus]

There were more gang related deaths in Edmonton than Washington state one year. Idon't remember which year, it was just one of those statistics news people threw around that was scary and memorable.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

For what the word of the bouncer is worth (a good friend of ours, though), he tells me that it's so that if some shit DOES go down in the bar, they have a snapshot of his ID, which can pretty damn useful in catching said person.

Re:Liability

[b4upoo]

How about issues like people on parole who are not allowed to enter bars? It seems to me that there is no downside to anyone having information and it is not just bars that should be using this technology. How about gas stations running checks on people that buy gasoline? How many felons could be caught by use of such technology?

Re:Liability

[slazzy]

Sometimes bar workers would like to know where those cute girls live so they can follow them home later. Scanning their address into their computer makes it much simpler.

Re:Liability

[CorporateSuit]

Illegal search by the government without warrant.

Only if the clubs in BC were run by the government, and the card was not surrendered voluntarily.

Re:Liability

[Dare nMc]

Not sure whats Illegal in the search? If I consent, the police can legally search anything I own. I assume the only issue is using a state ID to achieve the purpose, and by a private company, and retaining the information without proper disclosure. I sure hope a bar is allowed to retain photos of those arrested/banned from their private property, and use that information to prevent re-entry/trespass. I would further say, expanding this system so that clubs can further protect themselves, and sharing this with other private clubs sure makes sense to me, especially in a area known to have issues. Although I only know US laws and that all Vegas casinos deploy a similar system, legally I assume. The only difference is they have deployed it using only video cameras, and people to do the identifications.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Greater Vancouver residents blame certain visible minorities for most of the crimes in their communities, but police and academics say the statistical evidence contradicts such racial stereotypes.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Ipsos Reid poll believe some ethnic groups are more responsible for crime than others, and they put Indo-Canadian and Asians at the top of their lists....

In an interview Tuesday, Vancouver Police Insp. Kash Heed, commanding officer of the department's district 3 -- southeast Vancouver -- said actual statistics show the reverse of the poll findings.

"In the Lower Mainland, the majority of crimes are committed by Caucasians," he said.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6e62449a-b98a-4387-ad58-bf41461a1048&k=41287

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Their ethnicity is unimportant; beat them to within an inch of their life regardless.
Hey, it works in Singapore.

Re:Liability

[rashanon]

Its used in Vancouver to keep the gang bangers out, because right now they are all at war to take control of the blossoming drug trade. In Victoria its used to keep out the small cadre of drunks an malcontents who go from bar to bar to bar just getting more drunk. Its a private bar. If you don't like the fact that you have to provide ID then dont go. You dont have a right to go to the bar. no bar owner gives a shit who you are demographically, they care if you have already been tossed out of another bar this eveining for being a drunk dickhead.

We have an explosion of people in BC who wont accept any responsibility for being dumb. You don't have a right to go out, get drunk, piss on the doorway of someones downtown business, or start keying someones car because you don't like the way it works, or a hundred other complaints we get every weekend evening here.

And i mean here, because i live in Victoria. we just don't have a drunk tank big enough to deal with all of the late night idiots. We are pushing some of the responsibility back on the bars, and this is what they came up. The data is encrypted so its not easy to get to.

Too bad if you think you right to privacy has been violated. GO HOME AND SOBER UP

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Its bad enough that where I live, we have to show ID (and the same info is recorded and stored as well as dates of purchase) just to buy certain cover-the-counter cold medications. Why? Because they contain a chemical that can be used to manufacture crystal meth. Never mind that anyone wanting these cold medications for such a purpose would have to buy huge (we are talking pickup truck loads here!) to manufacture even a small quantity of meth.. Never mind that all it would really take is to train the cashiers to limit quantities.purchased by one person. Never mind that most meth operations would find it easier to steal what they need from a drug supply warehouse...

Gotta take another step towards Big Brother!

Re:Liability

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's mostly to do with Asian and East Indian gangs,

So, what's your point precisely? That only caucasians should have the right of privacy? I really can't figure out what your post has to do with markdavis's post about "papers please" that you responded to.

- posting anon to avoid the beating I'll get from PC people

Lol, so you do think that asians don't deserve the right of privacy. Thanks for clearing it up.

Re:Liability

[Pig Hogger]

So, what's your point precisely? That only caucasians should have the right of privacy?

Well, to racist whites, all gooks or niggers look the same, so scanning the IDs would recognize those who would need to recognized

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not "government" tracking. Its "private" tracking.

Hmmm.... why don't I feel any better?

Er, OTOH, it seems that a lot of the violence is from an identifiable subset of people and the reason the application is popular with the bars is that it accomplishes the goal of keeping trouble makers out without doing things like racial profiling etc.

Maybe they need Tom Cruise at the door to pick out who is going to commit violence instead?

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of people going to bars really don't care about having to show ID, and certainly not about some higher-minded notion of "being branded cattle".

People who go to bars go to get drunk, hit on guys/girls, watch sports, and try to have a conversation by yelling to each other over music played way too damn loud. Maybe play trivia at the more-interesting bars...

Re:Liability

[markdavis]

You are incredibly correct. This is another reason many are "cattle"....

The vast majority of people couldn't care less about privacy or freedom. That is, until it is lost- and by then it is usually too late.

Each generation successively gives up a little more freedom and privacy in the name of "safety".

Re:Liability

[fafalone]

How many felons could be caught if police were allowed to search anyone's home to id people without cause? How many could be caught if we had id scans for all vehicle occupants to gain access to the roads? Let's have squads of id swiping police walking the streets stopping random people doing nothing suspicious, entering all their info into the database, think of all the felons and fugitives we'd nail!
Better yet, let's implant everyone with a gps tracker at birth, that way we can monitor everybody to make sure they're always where they're supposed to be.

You're either a troll or a 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' fool whose tolerance to this sort of thing is stripping the country of civil liberties and leading down the road to a police state.

People around here might assume 'troll', but I've had conversations with people who think everything in the OP, and everything I said above, is ok. They were dead serious, they really thought security takes precedence over privacy regardless of how invasive.

Re:Liability

[thenewguy001]

Yes, you're right. While this isn't definitive proof, most of the people getting killed in the BC gang wars are causasian: http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/homicide/2009.html.

Though I can't find more sources right now, I've read numerous reports on the homicides in the past few years are from feuding caucasian gangs killing each other. The asian gangs seem to get along with each other more cordially. The only exception are those in the multi-ethnic "UN" gang.

Re:Liability

[dryeo]

We don't have felons in Canada, at that I think the rest of the world has left behind that relic of feudalism.
We also think that there is a downside to people having private information taken and even have a thing in our charter of rights about unreasonable searches which includes bars and gas stations trolling for information which they share.

Re:Liability

[adolf]

And this, boys and girls, is why I always nuke the magstripe on my ID using a strong magnet. It's easy: Just take a small neodymium magnet (available at any hardware store or inside of any hard drive if you don't already have one), wipe it back and forth across the stripe a few times, turn it over, and do it again.

I started doing this the first time the clerk at a store swiped my ID through their register while I was buying beer and paying with cash. They (the corporation, not the clerk -- he's an alright guy) have no business recording who I am when I make a cash transaction with them.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

The linked article mentions nothing about crimes committed by ethnic groups in proportion to percentage of population. Of course you would expect the ethnic majority to commit most of the crimes.

Re:Liability

[Repossessed]

Mine has a barcode instead of a magstrip.

Re:Liability

[commodore64_love]

If this BarScan program is *mandated* by the government, then effectively the bars are being run by the government. And that makes it an illegal search without warrant.

Aside-

I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the United States you only need to show your drivers license if you are physically inside a car. If you're just walking down a street, a cop cannot make you show your drivers license, because you're not driving. Nor can they force you to show an ID without warrant/probable cause.

Re:Liability

[commodore64_love]

A bar, restaurant, homeowner, or any other private place can demand ID as a condition of entry (or refuse service), but once you are inside the building they can't suddenly decide, "We changed our minds. We want your ID."

If they've allowed you to enter without ID then they must allow you to leave without showing ID as well.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the JEWS, stupid.
They want the entire population to get used to having our 'ID' scanned every time we enter a building. So our Jewish 'masters' can watch everything we do - to stop us from 'naming the Jew'.

Nice to see that the idiots on Slashdot make my comments hidden. Where are you going to run to when 90% of the population of your country is non-white, and your children are living in a third world country, that YOU helped to create?

Re:Liability

[mpe]

I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but this barwatch program in BC was enacted in response to a rash of nightclub shootings in recent years in which gang members got into fights with other patrons or were killed in targeted hits in which innocent bystanders were wounded or killed. The ID scan is to identify persons known to police in a database and refuse them services or entrance to the premises.

All that would be likely to happen would be that black market gun dealers would also provide fake ID documents.

Re:Liability

[mpe]

Originally the police were all about this how it would help them track down gangs and the clubs were all about how this would help them fend off repeat trouble makers.

If there are repeat troublemakers at the same club then maybe the bouncers need better training. Also clubs (and police) can work together to ensure that trouble makers can be identified by people working in clubs (and hopefully put where they belong). Without hassling every customer.

Re:Liability

[mpe]

I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the United States you only need to show your drivers license if you are physically inside a car.

And presumably in the driver's seat and on a public road. Or can a "passenger license" be required as well?

If you're just walking down a street, a cop cannot make you show your drivers license, because you're not driving.

A pedestrian isn't required to have one, either on their person or even at all...

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that people think that non-whites commit the majority of crimes, where as the opposite is true; Caucasians commit the majority of crimes.

It is simply correcting a factual error that another poster made.

Don't be so sensitive.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Vancouver is a very racist place. I suppose we should be thankful that this racism is not overt. Racism here exists with whispers when people know they are in a "safe" environment.

Non-whites who are born and raised in vancouver, possibly for several generations are never fully accepted as belonging by many Caucasians. This is especially ironic since many Caucasians come from small towns in BC and move to Vancouver, or are from other provinces. The sense of entitlement is strong in Vancouver.

If you want to see who commits the crime in this city, just walk down Hastings street or look what race the beggers, junkies and street kids that crowd the streets of the city are.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has its own website (canada.com)? Wicked eh.

Re:Liability

[Dare nMc]

strange laws, completely different than in the US.
un-related to the original story though which is about recording your id at entry. No reason to then re-check, like happens to me in the US constantly.

Re:Liability

[voodoobettie]

Technically I'd say that Kash Heed is correct but if you look at what the majority of crimes in the lower mainland consist of, I'd guess most are petty crimes such as property crimes and auto theft. I'm fairly sure that some of the downtown eastside people are being counted as committing crimes too, but they are talking about drug crime. Violent crime seems to be more of a gang thing however because if the down and out east hastings crowd had a gun they would have sold it long ago to buy a rock.

I don't like my ID getting scanned when I go into bars for the same reason I don't enter competitions and hate telemarketers. The last time my ID was scanned I didn't even realize they were going to do it until it was already done, they didn't ask for my consent. Presumably if you are going to some lame nightclub to commit crimes and hang out with your gang buddies, you'd be able to drum up a fake ID so why are we getting our privacy invaded just because we want to check out a band and have a few beers?

Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bars personally really don't give a shit about the client's ID. They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault and not the fakers. So obviously they have to implement fascist mechanisms of ID checking, otherwise they'd be forced out of business by the government.

Now the same government goes around and says their ID checking is too strict (while obviously not alleviating any of the burdens which it imposed on bars on checking IDs in the first place). Hey government geniuses, if you'd like bar owners to not violate their client's privacy, maybe relaxing your age-proving rules would be a good place to start?

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[schon]

They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault

[citation_needed]

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Em Emalb]

[citation_needed]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/chevrolet-citation-3.jpg

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[compro01]

They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault and not the fakers.

Please cite the relevant law or court ruling.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.eia.gov.bc.ca/lclb/licensing/laws.htm#id_requirements

1/2 true.

2 pieces of government ID required to enter any bar, there are signs up ALL over the place in BC telling you about this.
Minor with fake id, $115 fine for the minor.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why oh why when I've had mod points twice this week haven't I saved them for this.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Pulse_Instance]

He may mean this http://www.jetsales.com/comp/types/jets/citation10.jpg

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[profplump]

You've really never heard of strict liability in relation to the underage consumption of alcohol? Have you heard of google?
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22strict+liability%22+sale+alcohol

Here's one example, from California, in the first page of Google hits:
        http://law.onecle.com/california/business/25658.html
Which was enacted in 1998 and upheld in court by 2002.

And that's far from the only example. Many jurisdictions have even enacted strict liability laws against private-residence underage consumption -- where simply "failing to prevent" underage consumption is a crime, even if you didn't provide the alcohol, or did not have reason to believe that it would be consumed by underage individuals.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[cdrguru]

Just use Google:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/2009/06/02/bars-pay-price-for-underage-drinking

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20282532,00.html

http://hawkonomics.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-city-bar-restrictions.html

And that was just the beginning. Bars get shut down for serving underage people. It doesn't matter if they check the IDs or not - if they are fooled by a fake ID they can be shut down. It is almost never the underage person's fault, and even when they are charged, it is a fine and little else.

For the bar owner, it can result in the loss of the business.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[compro01]

Perhaps I should have been more clear about what to cite.

None of those links are relevant to this case, as IL, NY, and IA are not in British Columbia, Canada.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[dissy]

Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault

[citation_needed]

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1322917.html?storylink=omni_popular

Holiday was fined $500 by the Kansas Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. His customer was arrested in March 2008 for being a minor in possession of alcohol and for presenting police with a fake driver's license. He paid $452 in fines and court fees.

Holiday being the bar owner.

P.S. You really should check out this new site called Google. It lets you confirm such simple queries in less time than it takes to type the question (0.12 seconds in this case) instead of asking on a forum and having to wait minutes to hours for a reply.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[b4upoo]

I stand by the notion that anything that involves two people is public information. In the strict sense only that which remains only in one's own mind can be considered private.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any piece of information is the property of those who are stakeholders regarding that information.

The set of stakeholders is the set of a country's residents, when the information in question deals with affecting the whole country. Two simple examples is information regarding the use of tax dollars, or information related to public law or policy, to which all residents must adhere, voluntary or not. A more complex example is a corporation's policy and history concerning waste disposal or pollution -- if it affects disposing of waste or pollution of the whole country (or the whole planet), then the whole country or planet have the right to know that information.

In the case of a private contract between any number of individuals, which does not affect people outside of that contract, the public has no right to know the details, and the parties to the contract hold exclusive ownership of the information.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand by the notion that anything that involves two people is public information. In the strict sense only that which remains only in one's own mind can be considered private.

Since both you and your bank know your bank account number; just post it here since it is public information.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[SIR_Taco]

Since when did Kansas City become a part of Canada?

P.S. You should check out this new site called Google Maps. It lets you find things geographically (hint: Canada is North... that's up).

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

My karate teacher used to own a sushi restaurant. An underage kid came in with a fake ID, and killed someone driving home while drunk.

He lost his restaurant because the parents of the guy who was hit by the drunk underage kid sued him for serving them alcohol despite having no particular reason to think he was under 21.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[dryeo]

We're talking about Canada. I've never heard of a bar which showed diligence in checking ID being busted or successfully sued for serving an underage drinker.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their ID checking is not too strict, it retains IDs it has checked instead of forgetting them immediately. If it didn't retain IDs, it would probably not be under such scrutiny. Of course, you can't sell you ID list to junk mailers et al w/o retaining IDs.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[dissy]

Since when did Kansas City become a part of Canada?

Since, never? Why think it is?

You realize the question I answered never said it a canadian bar, just any bar, thus it was answered as such.

It is hardly my problem they don't know how to phrase a question proper!

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[ubergeek65536]

That is not the case here in BC. Bars or pubs may require up to two pieces of ID, one of them must be a government issued photo ID. Most bars here do not even ask for ID if they are resonably certain you are of legal drinking age. I'm very happy with the privacy commisioner's ruling. I'm one of the people that sent in a complaint. What pissed me off is now that bar has my driver's license, my credit card number, my birthday, my address, and my photo. When I get my new drivers license next moth the first thing I am going to do is try to disable the smart chip.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[sabt-pestnu]

Since when did Kansas City become a part of Canada?

You might look to the comment that was being quoted:

Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault

[citation_needed]

No jurisdictional boundaries in the original quote or the request. Kansas City is thus a qualifying jurisdiction. Any conceivable response would have been local and anecdotal, given that this is a blog read world-wide.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[SIR_Taco]

Ok, I understand your reasoning, but a generic (geographically) post in reference to the subject of the summary/article would be moot if it weren't in reference to British Columbia and/or Canada.

I could sit here and argue all day about liquor laws in China, but what would be the point.

Even in the US, the laws are different depending on which state you're in (21 in NY last time I checked) and 19 in most parts of Canada. So to argue a case that was presented in an entirely different place, legally, is moot.

Thanks for coming out though, I appreciate it.

Re:Between a rock and a hard place?

[SIR_Taco]

have a look at this post I think it will clarify things for you.

Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws?

[clarkkent09]

Cause it seems a bit unfair to impose ridiculously stiff penalties, including suspension of license, on clubs for serving underage persons, but then deny them any tools that might confirm someone's age, apart from looking at the date on an easily faked driver's license. Let the parents, not bartenders, be responsible for their childrens behavior.

Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws?

[darkvizier]

Not only that, it's a bit retarded for the government to put unencrypted data on a magnetic strip on the card and expect no one else will use it. I've been giving bars my credit card for years to pay for drinks. It's not like my information being in their hands is a new thing, and if the line moves quicker, then great. No, the bars are the least of my worries. My question is why is the government forcing people to carry their personal data in a manner that is not secure?

Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws?

[Dare nMc]

My question is why is the government forcing people to carry their personal data in a manner that is not secure?

You do realize that all the information on the magnetic strip has always been available in written form on the front, correct? Without the magnetic strip the process would likely be slightly more time consuming, and slightly more costly requiring a OCR of the ID first. The magnetic strip would make it slightly more difficult for fake ID makers as well (ok, just means they need to be somewhat hi-tech.)

Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You do realize that putting it on the strip makes it feasible to record the addresses of every bargoer in your establishment, while writing that stuff down is far too slow and obvious, right? The OCR thing might work, but it's far more hassle than you think.

Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws?

[dryeo]

This is about Canada, the bars are not keeping these records to prove they checked that underage drinkers ID. They're keeping it in case you piss off a bouncer, maybe hit on their girl friend, maybe get rowdy. Then sharing it with all the other bars to make sure you can't drink anywhere.
In theory not a bad idea. In practice... especially if they keep all these records indefinitely and perhaps sell them.

Re:Leads to relaxation of underage drinking laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

BC drivers licenses are not easily faked.

Verify My Ass. This is data mining pure & simp

[Dr_Ken]

These guys want that info to sell. Make as much off that as for selling drinks if they do it right. good on

Same thing in Alberta

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to scan in driver's licenses and then share the info among all downtown bars so that if you piss off a bouncer at one bar (are you hitting on his girlfriend?), you can get yourself banned from ALL bars
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/22/cgy-alberta-clubs-bars-info-id.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/28/cgy-bar-watch-safety-security-cameras.html

Privacy indeed

[markdavis]

Really? You mean that keeping records of people intending to drink alcohol, the time, the location, who you might be going with, and hold onto that information for some unknown time, and share that information with unknown people or organizations.... you mean doing that could be considered a violation of an individual's privacy??

It still amazes me that people that live in countries that supposedly support an individual's rights allow themselves to be treated like branded cattle this way.

To the legislators that create such stuff, and to the people who support such legislation: Keep on waxing that slippery slope...

Re:Privacy indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The really truly nice thing about living in this country which supports an individual's rights is that the bar owner is free to implement this, and I as the consumer am free to drink elsewhere, or even to open my own bar.

Re:Privacy indeed

[Brett Buck]

Hey, if I am running a bar I am scanning/Xeroxing the license. If you get charged with serving the underage, and you *don't* have a scan, you are dead in the water. You need proof that you had an ID that checked out. Period. If you don't want to provide an ID, there are plenty of places to get drunk aside from bars.

        Brett

Re:Privacy indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

its called your word. i.e. I swear I ID'ed him and he produced a valid looking ID, valid enough for me to serve him liquor. Its not my fault he isn't producing the ID upon the police request.

Stop being a pushover Brett.

Re:Privacy indeed

[markdavis]

Perhaps the police should then rely on good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to force a police state where private businesses are required to do it for them.

Undercover agents can "test" bars and fine them severely. That should be enough. Liability on the part of bars should be limited to what is "reasonable". Scanning or copying ID's is simply not acceptable.

Re:Privacy indeed

[Brett Buck]

This has nothing to do with saving the police work, it's saving your own ass when you get accused. The crime is serving alcohol to minors. If you are accused of serving alcohol to a minor, and you in fact did because they have a fake ID, you had damn well better be able to prove they had it and defrauded *you*, otherwise, you are stuck.

        Brett

Re:Privacy indeed

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you read the posts above about strict liability, it doesn't mean shit if you can prove that they gave you a fake id. The bar owner is still fucked. And good luck taking the kid to court, I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze lots of money out of them for 'defrauding' you.

The OP's point stands - the government has placed unreasonable requirements on bar owners making them essentially an extension of law enforcement. Those requirements are not compatible with a free society.

Re:Privacy indeed

[thenewguy001]

But how long do you need to retain this information? 48 hours? 1 week? I'd think you'd need to keep it just long enough such that if the minor got arrested or got in an accident, that investigators can verify where he got intoxicated. Keeping this information for this period is reasonable use to cover your liabilities. Any retention of this data longer than this time period should be a breach of privacy laws. These clubs seem to be retaining this private information indefinitely.

Re:Privacy indeed

[markdavis]

Actually, retention doesn't matter. If the information is collected, a citizen can not be guaranteed ANYTHING after that point. It is just like being fingerprinted. It doesn't matter if you are cleared of a crime, they will be retained "forever". Every time they run prints, yours will be "searched", without probable cause. Even if there is a law requiring them to be "removed" from a database, you can be very assured that they are still retained in the hands of some type of agency.

In an era dominated by cheap almost limitless storage, tons of computing power, and fast networks, once information is collected, the game is over. "Guarantees" about how that information will be used, by whom, and for how long are pretty much meaningless. Call me paranoid if you like, but I have had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to many people for many years...

Re:Privacy indeed

[dryeo]

We're talking about Canada, not the States. Here I believe that as long as the bar showed due diligence in checking ID they are not responsible for under age drinking. And yes the liquor control board does test bars to make sure they do show due diligence and they will lose their licence if they don't.

bar needs only one yes/no: is person = legal

[Anonymous Coward]

a bar needs one question answered:

is person older than legal drinking age. period.

they dont need name, age, address, hair color, who you arrived with, weight, etc.

Re:bar needs only one yes/no: is person = legal

[DavidTC]

hair color...weight

Yes, they do. In fact, they need an actual photo of you. So they can confirm that you are the person on the card.

Now, what should happen is that your address shouldn't be on the driver's license at all.

The police should be able to pull that out of the DL database, and no one else has the right to know where you live. That, frankly, is an idiotic holdover from when police did not have databases, and should have gone away mid-nineties. (If someone has a legitimate need to know where you live, for example if went to a bar and skipped on on your tab...that's what small claims court is for.)

Same with age, that should not be on a license, except underaged people should have that clearly marked on their DL. Although it should just be an 'Under 18' or 'Under 21' unless they specifically want their birthday on there. Same with elderly people, who could have 'Over 55' or whatever on their license if they want.

Re:bar needs only one yes/no: is person = legal

[RealGrouchy]

Same with age, that should not be on a license, except underaged people should have that clearly marked on their DL. Although it should just be an 'Under 18' or 'Under 21' unless they specifically want their birthday on there. Same with elderly people, who could have 'Over 55' or whatever on their license if they want.

...or "under 19" if you're drinking on a trip to Ontario. Or "under 18" if drinking in Quebec. Or "under 21" in case you visit the U.S. Or "under 25" if trying to rent a car...

- RG>

Re:bar needs only one yes/no: is person = legal

[DavidTC]

Renting a car is silly. If the credit places can't tell them your age, they really have no business existing. But that's not any sort of legal requirement, anyway.

As for other stuff, that's why I said if you are under 21, you could ask, in addition to 'under 21', to have your birthday on the license. Or, heck, print it on there by default, and only remove it if they ask.

But that should stop being done at 21 unless specifically asked for.

I wouldn't go in anyway

[drinkypoo]

I am not a number, I am a free customer!

You will treat me as such, or I will take my custom elsewhere.

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, 99 out of 100 people either don't understand the whole privacy thingy at all, or don't care enough to actually "go and take their custom elsewhere". For the last 1%, businesses figure out its financially better off for them to lose one custom rather than change their business model. So go ahead, take your custom elsewhere, the problem is that you probably won't find anyone to actually take your custom to.

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a number, I am a free customer!

You make a sound point, #153816.

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[tunapez]

Your money is your only vote that counts. I refuse to let them swipe my ID when I buy alcohol or tobacco, I even accidentally road-rashed the mag strip & bar code off the back. Oops.

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[hysma]

No you won't since there is nowhere left to go! That's the problem...

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy.

As the pervasive surveillance network of our society grows so to does the recursive underground which rejects it.

I haven't had photo id for many years and yet I have no problem finding a bar to serve me, a store to sell me cigarettes, or a bank to cash my cheque. Photo ID is a trap, go ask Blank Reg.

Of course if I want to leave my country legally I need a passport (nevermind I've driven between Canada and Mexico and never passed through anything resembling a proper border for years)... and to think, we used to ridicule the USSR for their check-stops and requirements of travel papers. Seems we've become the evil empire to me.

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[DavidTC]

Georgia DL have a sort of static looking back that's actually a bar code. I tried to find a picture but couldn't.

Someone, I don't know who, has taken a sharpie and randomly put in about 50% more of the little dots than should be there. Oops.

I have no idea what the hell that's for, I've never seen anyone try to scan it, and cops read off the number. (OTOH, I don't go to a lot of big bars or nightclubs. It's a small town, the biggest place can probably seat 50 people, and usually seats two dozen.)

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

That's part of the problem in Vancouver in particular and in BC in general though. There are very few night clubs since the provincial government and city of Vancouver have decided that they don't want to give out cabaret licenses anymore and haven't in at least 10 years (and have in fact taken back some old licenses). This means that for the population of the area, there are relatively few nightclub establishments that are mostly owned by 3 or 4 groups (such as the Donnelly Group, or Mark James Group) and they have brought these systems in to all their establishments. There are less than a dozen independent locations that have held out from implementing the Barwatch system so you may just find yourself not having anywhere else to go, unless you really don't care what kind of music/scene is going on.

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Next in line step up and present your personal information to the machine please...

Re:I wouldn't go in anyway

[drinkypoo]

you may just find yourself not having anywhere else to go, unless you really don't care what kind of music/scene is going on.

Those who would give up essential freedom for a little temporary music and scenery deserve neither.

What's the problem?

[i_ate_god]

I'll support this decision when the laws concerning kids change.

Here are two dangerous scenarios, both of which take place in an age-restricted venue.

#1) You go home with the cute girl. You don't worry about this person's age since the legal age of the venue is 18 (Quebec), 19 (rest of Canada), or 21 (USA). Well, turns out you were wrong, and now you're a branded sex offender for life. Your only recourse is to sue the bar to oblivion for not doing its job filtering out the kids, forcing the bar to start being more strict, including scanning IDs.

#2) You just got paid, feeling generous, go out to a bar, vibe is good and everyone is having a fun time. Your table of friends somehow merges with another table of strangers and everyone is getting along. So, you buy shots of vodka for everyone in celebration of such a great night. Only then, the police do a spot check on the bar, find out you bought alcohol for a minor, and get thrown in jail. Your only recourse is to sue the bar to oblivion for not doing its job filtering out the kids, forcing the bar to start being more strict, including scanning IDs.

When you're in an age restricted venue, that does not allow you to be innocent when you do something that somehow "violates" a minor that's also in the same venue. When the laws that facilitate this "guilt" change, then maybe I'll care a little more about the "privacy implications" of a bouncer being able to truly verify the age of an incoming customer.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just fear mongering baseless shit, #1 can happen anywhere so you're not solving that.

#2 you don't get thrown in jail the bar would be responsible for allowing a minor in.

Re:What's the problem?

[i_ate_god]

#1) It can happen anywhere, but it should never happen in an age-restricted venue. You should be completely free of guilt because you should assume that anyone in an age-restricted venue is an "adult". That is simply not the case.

#2) The bar didn't serve the minor, you paid for it, the bar served you and then you passed it on to a minor, and in this scenario, you did so for free.

Re:What's the problem?

[hysma]

I'll support this decision when the laws concerning kids change.

Here are two dangerous scenarios, both of which take place in an age-restricted venue.

#1) You go home with the cute girl. You don't worry about this person's age since the legal age of the venue is 18 (Quebec), 19 (rest of Canada), or 21 (USA). Well, turns out you were wrong, and now you're a branded sex offender for life. Your only recourse is to sue the bar to oblivion for not doing its job filtering out the kids, forcing the bar to start being more strict, including scanning IDs.

In Canada feel free to have sex with any girl who's over 16. But you'll be thrown in jail if you take photos. For photos, you've got to wait until she's 19. But sex, no problem at 16! Oh and they just moved that up from 14 a couple of years ago...

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The drinking age is 18 in Alberta and Manitoba as well.

Re:What's the problem?

[dryeo]

Actually for scenario #1, there was a famous case back in the 50's IIRC where a guy picked up a minor in a bar. Believed that she was of age, she was in a bar at a time when the drinking age was 21. Got caught fucking her and charged with statutory rape. The judge was very apologetic as he sentenced the poor guy to 5 years but the law was the law.
Anyways after this they changed the law so that believing the girl was of age was a valid defence.
Of course I wouldn't be too surprised if the law had been changed again recently, got to think of the children you know.

Re:What's the problem?

[wdh662]

Alberta and Manitoba also have a drinking age of 18. I know this having grown up in the latter.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight correction. The legal drinking age in Manitoba is 18.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bar need only verify that people they are letting in are AT LEAST age X -- not their exact age, who they are, where they live, etc.

Solution: ID contains a color-coded background which indicates "person is legal to drink booze". Bouncer looks at ID, verifies the picture is you, the background is the correct color, verifies ID authenticity features are all in-place (holograms, etc., which make fake ID harder to forge), gives the person back their ID, and lets them in or bars them from entering.

No scanning, no record-harvesting, etc.

As far as buying drinks for people you don't know, having sex with the cute girl, etc., YOU had better check their ID(s).

Where I live, an 18-year can legally work in a bar (waitress, stripper, whatever), even though they are not old enough (21) to legally drink.
 

Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[SydShamino]

Most of the comments on this story so far (about a dozen) are in support of customer privacy.

In contrast, last week, most of the comments on a similar story about Canadian privacy law were in favor of the business. In that case, though, the business itself was online (Facebook), whereas in this case, the business is brick & mortar & alcohol, and only the data is online.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/1346209/Facebook-Violates-Canadian-Privacy-Law

Do you, the Slashdot reader, have a different opinion about these two cases because of the case differences? Or did the posters of all of last Friday's comments go on vacation this week?

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, Facebook sucks and is very morons, and scanning peoples' IDs at bars sucks and is nothing more than a blatant and liberty-hating attempt to destroy our rights.

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the main difference is that, in the Facebook thread, the users voluntarily supplied their personal info when they signed up for a FB account.

This bar, OTOH, is effectively stealing personal data right from people's hands without securing any consent whatsoever.

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[SydShamino]

Aren't the bar patrons voluntarily supplying their personal information when they hand their ID over to the bouncer with a scanner?

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[erbbysam]

Aren't the bar patrons voluntarily supplying their personal information when they hand their ID over to the bouncer with a scanner?

You cannot get into the bar in most cases without handing it over to be scanned. To reference the comparison to online privacy, you do not need to provide your driver license number (or anything personal info) to FB to "get in". Also, FB, in a perfect world, would be be able to use that information to help you relate to people, while all the bar is using it for is to log people's activities. /.'ers probably don't like the idea of being tracked by non-voluntarily databases, not the idea of voluntarily handing over information.

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[commodore64_love]

Ya know some of those scanners can be used to steal your credit card numbers. So you hand them your ID with your social security number encoded on the strip. Then at the end of the night you hand them your credit card which also gets swiped.

Then the Bubba the bouncer or Bert the barman put these two pieces of data together and steal your Identity.

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[BitterOak]

There is a huge difference between the two cases. The Facebook case was about a website allowing others to view information voluntarily posted by its members. You aren't required to post any personal information to have a Facebook page. You can even use a fake name.

In this situation, you are required to hand over your driver's license and have a lot of personal information scanned as a requirement for purchasing a drink.

I can't speak for the entire "Slashdot community", but I'm actually more opposed to the laws that push bars into this kind of intrusive behavior in the first place. In many states and provinces, bars owners and managers can be charged criminally (never mind just losing their liquor license) for serving anyone under age even if they present a valid-looking fake id. Absent such laws, the marketplace would probably discourage bars from scanning licenses, as people probably would prefer not to give up such personal information. But because of these laws, it's hard to find bars that don't engage in that practice, and once scanned, they can sell your information in secret and you'd never know which bar did so. So I'd be all in favor of letting the bars put whatever silly requirements they want as a condition of entry, but let's get rid of the draconian laws which encourage bars to collectively implement such measures.

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[qwerty360]

what right do you have to enter the bar?

Re:Interesting Comparison to Online Privacy

[dryeo]

The bar is only a semi-private area. With that liquor license and being open to the public the bar loses certain rights, like refusing service for no good reason.
If the bar owner doesn't like it he should never have applied for the license and opened his doors to the public.

Its not about AGE restrictions!

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Some of you are perhaps missing some information regarding this case.

The id's were being taken not because of age issues, it was due to a rash of gang violence in vancouver and the lower mainland of BC. The bars decided to start scanning peoples IDs and running them against a police/RCMP database. This in turn, it was hoped, would keep people with active warrants and such from frequenting bars and causing a ruckus.

As other have pointed out, it has been somewhat effective as there has not been any shooting in clubs downtown (insert tiger rock analogy here). The downside is that all these innocent people have to submit to police state type actions in order to go to MOST bars in downtown vancouver (mostly on granville st, club district).

I myself have been denied entrance for asking too many questions regarding data storage policies and complaining about the system. Most people do not seem to care and will hand over their DL as well as be photographed. I have watched many people hand over ID without a second thought. They scan the mag stripe and put it into their private database. How long do they keep the data? I do not know, as I was escorted out for asking that and other questions.

THis is a real win for privacy in BC. If you read the CBC fourms however, you can see that many so called citizens do not care two shits about privacy as long as they have their preacious illusion of security.

Re:Its not about AGE restrictions!

[Skyppey]

This has me quite excited for my move to BC. All too often we are asked to provide this piece of identification or that one, but how often do we question the need to provide it. I'm guilty of this the majority of the time, I'm sure. The default answer to providing personal information beyond the norm should be, "no." And, then after a chat with a manager a comprimise, a justification or an explanation of what is done and will be done with the information, should be given. Props to the complainant who brought this to the Privacy Commissioner.

Re:Its not about AGE restrictions!

[commodore64_love]

>>>you can see that many so called citizens do not care two shits about privacy as long as they have their preacious illusion of security.

Well as I just said in another post, they WILL care when the experience Identity Theft because Bubba the bouncer and Bert the barman took the swiped ID and the swiped credit card & combined them together to become Sally the sorority girl (or some other customer).

Then I suppose these idiot citizens will want to cry and blame everyone else, except themselves.

Re:Its not about AGE restrictions!

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need to have police details like they do over here in the states, problem solved.

Re:Its not about AGE restrictions!

[phantomfive]

Yeah, actually, I went to a bar tonight, and they scanned my driver's license. This was in San Mateo California. I really could not think of any reason to not give it to them. Even if they keep it forever, I actually don't care. Maybe someone else can tell me a reason I should care, but I doubt it.

Re:Its not about AGE restrictions!

[commodore64_love]

Read the post directly above yours. In brief - they can gather information off the black strip of your drivers license, combine it with your credit card, and commit Identity Theft.

Re:Its not about AGE restrictions!

[dubbreak]

Finally someone who gets it.

It's not about verifying age, they had sufficient tools to do that before the scan, picture save to db. It is (theoretically) about safety. If someone does something violent then there is an easy way to identify that person (go through the photos taken that night and the corresponding id swipes). Let's just ignore any possibility of fake id's that scan properly for now. So if something bad happens you have the guy/girl caught as long as someone witnessed it (and with how crammed clubs are lots of people probably witnessed it). So great, the culprit is easier to find as you have a positive identification and justice can be served.

The problem is lots of data is collected, against peoples' will and rights and there are currently no standards in place. If this data collection is to be allowed, then how long and how data is kept and how it is to be used has to specified and must be audited. If there were no incidents that night then why should data be kept longer than 24-48 hours? If it is specified that 24 hours is the maximum storage time, then who is going to verify that is actually happening?

I worked in bars in Victoria when I was younger. I can't guarantee it, but with the way most of them work I'd bet they are using the scanned info to profile their customers to figure out how to make more money. That's valuable data and the bar scene is very competitive (lots of bars with a limited customer base). If any one bar starts using that data then they all have to just to keep up.

It does seem like bar violence has decreased since the measures have been implemented, but at what expense? I am willing to bet that the previous problem makers no longer show up at the bars that are taking id info, so you the end you are just taking info from people who will not be an issue and storing it so that it's temptingly accessible by bar owners. If you have a data connection to a federally or provincially controlled data warehouse and nothing is stored locally (ok pretend they couldn't just grab the data as they scan it) it gets rid of the owner issue, allows identifying violent patrons but is still a privacy issue (are you going to trust that the gov't will only access the data under warrant because of an incident?).

I can't suggest a better solution off the top of my head, but I can suggest that bars/cabarets start following the laws and quit over serving guests. That would cut down on violence (profits as well though..). The BC liquor laws prohibit serving someone more than 3 legal drinks in a hour and prohibit serving someone who is apparently intoxicated (according to my "Serving it right" course I took to be licensed to serve drinks). No bars follow that and it isn't enforced. Start by enforcing that. Yes bar owners will be upset (drunk customers == $$$), but if the goal is customer safety I think profits should be sacrificed before privacy.

Keep the Idiots out.

[jklovanc]

Most of the problems in bars in Victoria are caused by a very few people. They cause a problem at one club, get kicked out, go to the club down the street and repeat the process. They ruin the evening for everyone around them but they don't care because they just want to make trouble. Maybe if they were banned from every bar if they caused trouble in one tey would think twice before causing that trouble. Since when is making trouble at a bar a right?
The system is designed to inform all bars who have the system that someone has been banned. The simplest way to do it is to use drivers license numbers as they are unique to each person. Now one may say that they should only track the license numbers of individuals who cause issue but just think about trying to get that number as you are throwing someone out. You also have to check to see if they are banned as they come in.
As for miss-use of the information, there are plenty of civil and criminal penalties to make that not worth the risk.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[acidrainx]

And what happens when some bartender/server/bar owner has a grudge against someone and throws them on the banned list out of spite? Now somebody who is perfectly innocent can't get into any of the bars in Victoria.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of civil and criminal penalties that should prevent people from fighting, urinating, etc.. but people still do anyways so I don't see your argument about misuse. There's no way to know when your information was misused that's why this sucks.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[chappel]

just think about trying to get that number as you are throwing someone out.

Out of curiosity... how do they get that information off the person being thrown out to know which of the hundreds of patrons that came in that night make the 'banned' list? Wouldn't the person actually need to get arrested, such that the information on the list is retrieved from the police?

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[jklovanc]

Because it is on the scanned license. The system has a search function by height, weight, gender etc. The bar can pull up a list of possibles and then compare photographs from the DL.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[jklovanc]

That is a risk. There is also a simple solution to that; slander laws. Just point out to the bar in question that what is happening is slander and they could be sued for quite a bit of cash. They will change the database quite quickly.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, just one of many innumerable misuse scenarios.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[Anonymous Coward]

with BarWatch, you get to the front-door bouncers who scan your ID on a flatbed scanner then it will tell them instantly if you are banned or were recently banned at another bar...etc. still... the bouncers can just say HEY watch out for that dick in the leather jacket with spikes stickin out everywhere to all the other bars the old fashioned way.

Re:Keep the Idiots out.

[Dan541]

Why use drivers licenses?

If bars want a system like this why not have some form of membership card?

People can then use that card on the bar/club network.

So how does a country club work, legally?

[Animaether]

Apparently I can't just walk into any ol' country club. I have to show my membership card. I get my membership card by applying. Part of the application process is showing some form of ID, another part is laying down a bunch of moneys, being in good standing, blabla.
How come that is legal, then?

As a result - and I know the answer is 'no', but I'm curious as to -why- it is 'no' - couldn't any ol' bar simply offer 'guest membership' by means of, say, a stamp / wrist band, where the 'membership process' includes showing some form of ID, costs the patron, say, $2 (which goes toward a complimentary membership drink), and the membership duration lasting the entirety of the patron's stay?

Re:So how does a country club work, legally?

[RsG]

Apparently I can't just walk into any ol' country club. I have to show my membership card. I get my membership card by applying. Part of the application process is showing some form of ID, another part is laying down a bunch of moneys, being in good standing, blabla.
How come that is legal, then?

As a result - and I know the answer is 'no', but I'm curious as to -why- it is 'no' - couldn't any ol' bar simply offer 'guest membership' by means of, say, a stamp / wrist band, where the 'membership process' includes showing some form of ID, costs the patron, say, $2 (which goes toward a complimentary membership drink), and the membership duration lasting the entirety of the patron's stay?

Part of the answer is, we give country clubs far less grief than they're due, because many of their members are influential. And they still catch hell when they enforce membership rules that are very obviously racist, though that happens less often than you might think.

However, in this specific case, you're comparing apples and oranges - the situation in BC is not akin to a country club barring non-members. Once the law gets involved in a situation like this (which it did, since they were tying the scans to police databases), the system becomes subject to legal oversight. Cops, legislators and the like are bound by higher laws concerning basic rights for the people, which were very obviously being violated here.

Re:So how does a country club work, legally?

[rhizome]

couldn't any ol' bar simply offer 'guest membership'

Well sure, but then they'd lose impulse business brought in by foot traffic.

Re:So how does a country club work, legally?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually no not by his description of the process they wouldn't.

Re:So how does a country club work, legally?

[LargeMythicalReptile]

Legally, the difference between a bar and a country club is that the bar is what is frequently referred to as a semi-public space. That is, it is private property, but is open to the general public. Restaurants, shops, etc. typically fall into this category.

Owners of semi-public spaces do have some rights to control their property (e.g. enforcing a rule that they'll kick you out of the store if you don't buy anything, or a movie theater not allowing kids into a theater hall that is currently showing an R-rated film). However, they have fewer rights over the property than owners of private spaces do (e.g. they can't prevent someone from entering solely based on their race).

A country club is typically a fully private space--while there are procedures for gaining access, the general public is excluded. A bar is a semi-public space--there is a general expectation that it is "open to the public" (subject to legal age restrictions). Your proposal of "membership" might be seen as an attempt to make a bar a letter-of-the-law private space. IANAL, but I'd expect it to fail in one of two ways:
1) Someone could legitimately argue that the temporary "membership" is basically a farce and the bar is still a semi-public space, since the general public can--and, indeed, is desired to--still access it by gaining trivial membership.
2) There may be zoning restrictions involved. Bars are frequently located in commercial zones; cities may require any businesses operating in the area to be semi-public.

Re:So how does a country club work, legally?

[gmhowell]

Because judges belong to country clubs and don't want the undesirables to be there.

Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe (Re:Liability)

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody's favorite grammar teacher: Bob the Angry Flower

Still going forward

[technicalandsocial]

A few other items of note:
- Even though the privacy commissioner ruled it against PIPA, the Victoria based bars have decided to go ahead with the program, showing they don't respect the privacy of their clients, or the privacy commissioner himself.
- They will not be scanning all patrons, only those they deem as a risk. Can't wait for the human rights commission complaints over that one.
- A list of bars I will now permanently boycott are listed at the bottom of this Times Colonist article: http://www.timescolonist.com/Bars+swipe+patron+collect+data/1773848/story.html

WTF.....?

[IHC Navistar]

I've worked at a couple of bars here in the US and we scanned ids. But, the scanners we used were small, portable handheld units that just read the magstripe to see in the data contained in the magstripe matched the information printed on the front of the card. The only contact with the outside world that the unit had was the tiny AC power cord used to charge the batteries.

I can see the benefits of scanning cards, as it is very easy to duplicate DLs. However, I don't see how you need to completely read someone's info and feed it into an online database just to check their age.

In the US, if a counterfeit ID that can fool any reasonable person is used to illegally purchase alcohol, and the bar serves the alcohol, the person who made the purchase is held fully accountable, and not the bar. This protects bars from having to worry about every single ID being counterfeit, as counterfeiters are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

I think the system of electronic scanners that just verify magstripe data with printed data on the front of the card is sufficient, since a counterfeit card that looks legit AND fools scanners will also fool any resonable person.

I don't see where Little Brother Canada thinks that everybody should have to punch in to a database whenever they want to go out for a night on the town.

Re:WTF.....?

[courtjester801]

Just a couple of quick points to consider.

The laws are different from state to state, even within a state. Utah, for example, the bars can (and do) get sued for fake IDs. There wasn't a lot of personal responsibility for someone with a fake until this past legislative session.

Secondly, having had a hand in producing some scanning software to work with Utah Law (there are only so many items you're allowed to pull out of the license from the mag stripe or the bar code), what gets pulled also differs from locale to locale. For example, here you're not allowed to pull address or SSN. British Columbia likely has the same constraints, as do most states in the Union.

And finally, it's really not that difficult to fool a scanner. I had one test card that looked legit; Utah's State Seal hologram was fine, the plastic was not obviously tampered with, paper looked fine as did the type, but upon scanning the information printed on the card was obviously not what was coming out of the display using information pulled from the barcode. A "22" year old white male from Provo was, according to the software, a 37 year old female from Ogden; so just having a red light/green light system would not work. Take into consideration, none of this interacted with an online database. Information on the bar codes and magnetic stripes are ridiculously easy to read and code/decode.

Side note, it's Friday, it's quitting time, so I'm going to go make sure my license works at a few fine establishments with loose womens and beer.

Re:WTF.....?

[IHC Navistar]

Speaking of counterfeit IDs in Utah,

I lived in Utah for a year or two during high school and remember back in 1998-99 where people were breaking into DMVs and stealing cameras, printers, and paper because they couldn't replicate the holograms and stuff. I suppose now that technology has advanced that criminals are able to replicate the holograms and stuff on their own without having to steal supplies.

Re:WTF.....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - complete and utter failure.

1. This story is not about checking for age
2. "Little Brother Canada" has much more mature and restrictive privacy laws than the US
3. This story is about the law restricting private businesses from requiring their customers to "punch into a database"

Re:WTF.....?

[ceoyoyo]

"I don't see where Little Brother Canada thinks that everybody should have to punch in to a database whenever they want to go out for a night on the town."

Actually, the story is about Canada deciding that everybody should NOT have to punch in to a database whenever they want to go out for a night on the town.

That country down below however, has not.

Re:Here is the local media story

[thenewguy001]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/22/bc-barwatch-violates-privacy-laws.html

Just Plain Stupid

[Nom du Keyboard]

This court decision is just plain stupid! How much privacy should you expect about your age when the laws require you to be of a minimum age to enter the establishment? The scanning box should simply have 2 lights -- green to enter and red to be barred -- and that's all the information the bar needs to know. Once we establish what they need to know and what they don't need to know then there shouldn't be a privacy issue because if you want to protect your privacy about your age then just don't enter.

Re:Just Plain Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant!

Now if only you had read the article and had a clue about why people are concerned. It has nothing to do with the "privacy" of one's age and everything to do with the totality of data being collected such as driver's licence numbers, photos, etc.

Hurr durp.

Re:Just Plain Stupid

[ceoyoyo]

Did you even read the summary? The privacy laws are just fine with looking at someone's drivers licence to confirm their age. I expect they're also probably fine with scanning the barcode to make sure the information lines up. What the court has said is not okay is scanning everybody's license, storing the data in a private database and matching it up with police databases.

This sounds like a great idea...

[hyades1]

After all, it's not as though I've never encountered a bouncer who's a rage-driven, 'roid-crazed whack job with delusions of adequacy, a two-figure IQ, and an ironclad belief that every woman in the world desperately wants access to his shrunken little dick. Exactly the kind of person I want having access to my sister's personal information. And if there's ever been a "security system" in a bar that couldn't be defeated in five minutes by a bartender with a Grade 8 education and a weakness for white powder, I've yet to see it. So I wouldn't be all that confident that the twitchy little guy in the corner with the laptop and the Klingon Vengeance Blade isn't paging through the personal data of everybody on the premises even as I try to hide my "Trekkies Are Assholes" t-shirt.

The day I surrender the contents of anything on a mag strip to the lack-wits, thieves and bottom feeders who infest your average bar is the day I move to Iran and stand on a street corner with a megaphone and invite Ali Khamenei to blow me.

Victoria Resident...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I am from Victoria and I will just say that Victoria has a huge music scene, and that is the only reason I will ever enter a bar anymore. Having to swipe your ID before entering the bar will make me do that a lot less, and literally never for another reason.
Bar watch victoria has stated that it will continue scanning ID's and has stated that the ruling on the vancouver club was under different curcumstances (wrong) Big brother is creeping ever closer in Canada and BC. I want this program to be stopped once and for all.

Wrong fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol use helped make me the person I am today. I would not trade the experience, and I am very fortunate to have been a teenager at a time when alcohol use was not so forcefully or so universally prohibited. I feel sorry for the current generation, I really do.

Missed the point

[jklovanc]

This is not an ID verification system; it is an system designed to deny service to bad patrons.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It really depends where you want to go...

[CohibaVancouver]

I live in Vancouver. Whether you get 'scanned' depends a lot on where you want to go. If you want to go to a dance club ("Night at the Roxbury") with $10 martinis in the Granville Entertainment District, or a high-end strip bar then yes you'll need to get scanned to get through the door. If you want to go to a pub with your buddies and have a few pints and watch the hockey game, or go to a seedier strip club, then no, you won't get scanned. The clubs that have these scanners have large signs telling you as such, and the cameras are fairly obvious.

I don't really have an issue with it as I don't have to patronize those bars if I don't want to.

I don't have a problem with it, in theory.

[fishizzle]

I have been to the bar in question in this article, and have to say in theory I have no problem with what they're trying to accomplish. As stated elsewhere, this has nothing to do with avoiding selling booze to minors. A standard ID check is enough for that (current BC drivers licenses are very difficult to forge. I have yet to see a fake one, and would figure the skills and equipment required to produce a fake put it way out of reach of your typical teenager wanting to buy alcohol.)

The procedure for entering these bars is to discourage criminals (i.e. gang members) from entering the premises, and in the case a violent incident does occur, provide an ability to track the perpetrators as efficiently as possible. The execution of these procedures is done very fairly as well. The bouncers are courteous (as long as you are, I'm sure) and treat everyone the same -- no "You're hot, you don't need to participate" bias that I've seen. Everyone lines up. Everyone gets patted down. Everyone scans their ID. Everyone smiles for the camera. It's very quick and smooth if you don't make a big deal out of it.

People who think this reeks of "police state" need to remember this is a private business you can choose to either enter, or not enter. If you want to enter, you have to abide by their rules.

Should anything bad go down in the bar that night, they have an exact record of everyone who was in the bar, as well as current-as-of-that-night photos of them. More then anything, having the patrons all know that acts as a huge deterrent. The bar in question used to have problems with "thugs". I have heard of no problems since they implemented the system. I actually enjoy going there knowing I don't have to worry about some of the violent problems that other bars have.

That being said, there are definitely some changes that could be made to improve the process for everyone. I could definitely see bouncers getting irritated by patrons questioning their policies, but I'm guessing it's mainly because they don't really know the nitty-gritty details as it's just their job to get people through the system as quickly as possible. This would create tension and bad vibes between patrons and the bar, which is probably what leads to complaints and court cases like this.

Creating a fair and acceptable privacy policy, adhering to it (and maybe have an independent audit proving that they do adhere to it), and educating the bouncers to be able to answer questions regarding it would go a long way into gaining users trust of the system. Even have printed copies of the privacy policy available for customers to step aside and read before making a decision to enter the bar to keep the line flowing.

Re:I don't have a problem with it, in theory.

[dryeo]

I don't really go to bars anymore, but living in the bible belt out in the valley where we have the highest murder rate in Canada there has been lots of articles in the local papers. This is what I see lacking. No mention of privacy policies and no mention of purging the records in a reasonable time.
Once again an idea that is great in theory but in practice who knows.

Re:I don't have a problem with it, in theory.

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually enjoy going there knowing I don't have to worry about some of the violent problems that other bars have.

As a Texan, I always find that the generally, biweekly bar fights that break out in my favorite dive are a wonderful and welcome diversion from the overpriced watered-down drinks, 45 year old, toothless, overweight, drunken floozies with way too much makeup and perfume, and the intolerable drudgery that is my life. After getting drunk on cheap beer and rotgut whiskey, blackening an eye and caving in some asshole's chest seem to be the only pleasure left in Amarillo these days. It seems that breaking a stool over someone's head is getting to be the only thing that keeps me going nowadays. Sure the bruises, medical fees, days spent in the drunk-tank and the hundreds of dollars in fines for drunken disorderly conduct are taking a toll, but it is a small price to pay for a good twenty minutes of pure unadulterated happiness week.

Re:I don't have a problem with it, in theory.

[^_^x]

My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of other bars, and I don't mind if my name's on a guestbook that may be audited when there's a fight/robbery/etc.

It may even have a small deterrent effect on fake IDs, though not much since Canada has decided to go with the free PDF417 barcode standard that's not proprietary in the least.

Bars that require 21+ is ridicules

[zukinux]

Because of requiring such age for entering bars in the states, the young guys there just want to drink (and do drink) much more than he would have drank if it was legal. They fly abroad all over the world and see that they can drink over 18 and only in their home they can't. That's truly ridicules, and I think that's one of the reasons that lots of people in the states do drugs (like much more comparing to the rest of the world).

Easy Solution

[GoldMace]

Let everyone in, and let everyone drink....

But I'm sure someone will object to that too...

Re:Verify My Ass. This is data mining pure & s

[Dan541]

The same thing happens in Australia.

We have places that Record your ID, Take photo and video, take a voice print and fingerprint scan.

fight big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I just buy everything with a fake id that has fake mag strip data on it. then you become less obvious and can insert false data into big brother to confuse him.

Not Government

[chrb]

Except it isn't done by the government, it's done by a private corporation.

Flip this around - you own a small bar, should you have the right to refuse entry to people who are likely to cause violence? It's your property, right? And in order to verify identity, shouldn't you be able to request that the person supply some ID? After all, they're free to say no and go elsewhere.

Re:Not Government

[markdavis]

>Flip this around - you own a small bar, should you have the right to refuse entry to people who are likely to cause violence? It's your property, right?

I could flip it around too....

As a bar/store/business owner, should you have the "right" to refuse entry to people who:

1) are of a certain color?
2) are a certain sexual orientation?
3) are of a particular religion?
4) are of a particular political party?
5) are wearing clothing?
6) have speeding tickets?
7) have done jail time?
8) don't allow you to search their person?
9) don't allow a DNA sample?
10) don't have a certain bank account balance?
11) live in a certain part of town?
12) are registered to own a gun?

Just something to think about. "Private" business controls our freedom and lives every bit as much as the government. Perhaps more.

As for your second part:

>And in order to verify identity, shouldn't you be able to request that the person supply some ID?

If there is a minimum age requirement, you can verify their age. But that does not require knowing their identity, just their age. And it doesn't require keeping records of it.

Re:Not Government

[mpe]

Flip this around - you own a small bar, should you have the right to refuse entry to people who are likely to cause violence? It's your property, right? And in order to verify identity, shouldn't you be able to request that the person supply some ID?

"Identity" isn't much help in knowing if someone is likely to cause violence. Recognising them as a "trouble maker" from a previous visit or even "gut instinct" is a better guide. Having them produce a document which tells you which type of cars they can drive is probably at best a waste of time, especially since they wouldn't be that good a customer if they intended driving away from your bar...

lies, damn lies and statistics

[SmallFurryCreature]

the majority of crimes are commited by whites...

Perhaps because they are the majority?

The capatalist United States spends more on social security then the socialist Netherlands. Well duh, 360 million people vs 16 million.

You can make numbers say almost anything if you are not careful.

If say morocans (the dutch problem minority) commit 100.000 crimes and the dutch commit 1.000.000 then you would foolishly claim that the dutch are more criminal. Two problems. The dutch figure would include some morocans as A: dutch police does not record ethnicity for its statistics B: some dutch are also morocans.

But the real killer is that morocans are less then 5% of the population. So, lets say there are 1 million muslims in holland and you would have accurate figures saying that they commitied 100.000 crimes. You would also know that there are 15 million non-muslims and they commited 1.000.000 crimes. Then you could totally tell the truth and say that non-muslims commit more crimes... but that ain't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In fact, recent studies have shown that crime figures in holland are indeed higher. Of course, these figures were disputed but again, the figures themselves don't tell the whole story. For instance, police are not allowed to collect racial information for their statistics. So, if you report a crime and say the person was black and the crime is never solved, that crime does NOT show in statisics. Oh and you can argue till you are blue in the face about racism, but since most anti-racist seem destperate to stop any attempt to finding out what is REALLY happening, we are now stuck with a world-wide perception that ALL immigrants are trouble and the powers-that-be are unwilling to do anything about.

And that sir, is damned close to what happened at the beginning of last century. The fact and figures might be different but the sentiments are the same.

And NO, you are NOT helping. The anti-racists need to start talking TRUTH rather then try to push their dream world onto everyone else.

because the simple truth about immigrant crime figures is this: They corrolate 100% with poverty based crime figures.

The immigrant areas are just new names for the slum areas. I am old enough to remember when the bad sections of towns were white. The residents also spoke their own language (slang if you like) only then it was "plat amsterdams" ("flat old amsterams"). The effect was the same, if you were born on the wrong side of town, it was hard to move out and crime was often an easy option.

The white moves up and the immigrants moved into the vacant spot taking up the jobs left vacant. Cleaner, hooker, thief.

Go ahead, look up the figures and you will see this is true.

Of course there is one problem, this problem can't be solved. Raise the living standards of the current immigrants and more will move in. Partly because society needs people to be at the bottom (where else are you going to get your 10 dollar car radio) and partly because no matter how bad it might seem to us, the western bottom is still better then the bottom in a lot of the rest of the world.

So the truth is, these crime figures are part of life and you can't do anything about it. Not a message either left or right can use in an election.

No simple answers

[SmallFurryCreature]

You can of course choose to live in a dream world where everyone should be free and is free and that just works.

In reality, bars have two problems.

A: Minimum legal age for drinking in a bar. As a society we seem to want this enforced rather then leaving it up to the individual to handle their own freedom responsible. Crazy I know. Surely 12yr olds are mature enough? Because a law without bards has no meaning and we are to wishy washy to lock up underage drinkers we created a REALLY odd situation in that someone else has become responsible for stopping others from breaking the law. Think about it, are car-makers responsible for checking that drivers of their cars have a valid driving license?

So, bars have to make sure their patrons are of legal age and if they fail to check, they can be held accountable. This is odd. Say I am a drunk driver, I drive along and the police fails to spot me and then I kill someone because of being drunk. Is the police then fined for having failed to spot me? No. So why is a bar fined for having failed to spot I am not of legal age?

Over the years in holland the check in supermarkets for selling beer has gone from not at all (we kids were often send to return an empty crate, get a new one and we could keep the deposit money for candy) to a visual check of the person, to asking for ID if in doubt to IDing everyone presumed to be below 20 (minimum age is 16 and being raised to 18).

And how do you prove you asked for an ID and that you had reason to believe it was legit? By making a copy. How do you make a copy without taking down LOTS of private information? Clerks are not specialists on identification of legal documents. That is why they have a scanner to check for false money (which by the way wasn't neccesary when we still had our own money that was extremely hard to fake, thank you EU and Mr Zalm, who said we had to trust him and then became head of a bank that is now under investigation but that is different rant).

Either we want our freedom to not have to ID ourselves when getting a drink and ACCEPT that it is a teens own responsibility to not try to drink before they are legal (yeah right) or we give up our freedom in exchange for protecting teens from themselves.

B: Keeping out underiables. This sounds a lot like Big Brother but people forget what a Big Brother really is. Someone who keeps you save. At least, that is what I was often told to do as a big brother of my little sister. I was to watch out for her and for instance stop her from getting into trouble or crossing the street.

The anarchists would say we don't need Big Brother but what always confuses me about anarchists is why they ain't mass emigrating to Somalia and places like it where there are no nasty laws to restrict you.

Most normal people resent cops/bouncers and their meddling but also wouldn't visit a place without cops/bouncers. Go ahead, proof me wrong, book a flight to Mogadishu.

Systems like this are designed to keep a record of people so that know undesirables can be kept out. For several decades this was considered not done. The right didn't want to spend the money and the left believed all people are basically decent and don't need to be constantly policed. Shortish example: Amsterdam light rail, no conductors for several decades. You could enter and exit legally through any door and there were no ticket checks of any kind. The dream world: people would pay for their tickets regardless. Yeah right. The conductor is back and it was very funny to see how empty the first trams with conductors were when the switch occured.

You can run a bar without a bouncer and trust on the decency of your customers and you might get lucky. Until you attract some anti-social people. They might even be good customers but their actions turn away your other patrons. Seen this happen to a local eatery, wrong kids started to use it as their base, within a year nobody else came there anymore and it went out of business.

When you are

id scanning isn't always a bad thing

[schellenbergenator]

Why is everyone so against scanning of id's. I work for a nightclub in a chain of nightclubs in manitoba canada, and we have been using id scanners for over a decade. We have never used police or government agency databases when checking id's, the only part of the id we scan is the top face of the id, all information is locked up on a server in the GM's office and is only stored for 7 days. the whole point of scanning id's is to identify trouble makers after the fact either to press charges or to bar them from re-entry for instance if an incident occurs on our property and someone gets hurt by another patron we can look the persons id up and hand it over to the police

I went somewhere once that did this

[Kevin108]

The next day I simply took sandpaper and scrubbed the bar code off the back of my license.

Re:I went somewhere once that did this

[jklovanc]

Which makes that licence no longer valid ID and therefore you can be denied service.

Re:I went somewhere once that did this

[Kevin108]

Not at all. All the info is on the front. That is all that's necessary.

Re:I went somewhere once that did this

[jklovanc]

Actually we are both wrong. The Victoria system takes a picture of the front of the license so modifying the back is irrelevant.

Oooooh Sexy Talk!

[BancBoy]

Keep on waxing that slippery slope...

meow!

Re:Here is the local media story

[Xerolooper]

Informative article thanks for the link.

"There is no rational justification for why retention of all of this data from everyone who comes into the club.⦠There really isn't," said Vonn.

I love how he thinks just repeating this over and over will make it true even though they already said why it was necessary. Definitely lawyer think. I honestly hope cooler heads prevail and they keep the scanners. Here's an idea if you don't want your id scanned don't go to places that do it. Or choose to act in a civilized manner. They should not be selling the data but working with police and other public records systems seems perfectly reasonable and necessary to me.

Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

because Victoria is a tourist town and requiring a membership would cut into business. There is also the issue with the cost, creation and tracking of membership cards. Everyone has to show ID to get into bars these days so that is what they use.

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

Some tourist's may not have drivers licenses, in fact allot of the general population don't drive.

Plus a person may have their license suspended, which would be a problem if it is a long term suspension as the plastic card would expire.

Showing ID is not a problem but if bar owners want to record information they should foot the bill to implement a system that is less prone to abuse an exploitation.

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

Any system that records personal information is prone to abuse and exploitation. The solution is to make the consequences of that misuse so high that it is not worth the risk.

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

The system I proposed would only record names, D.O.B and a photo.

That's ALLOT less than including the persons home address and drivers license number.

Some places currently record finger prints and voice prints as well as video, photo and the drivers license.

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

The issue with that is the inability to find the identifier for the person who is being banned. What do you think the response would be to a bouncer saying "We are banning you. Give us you name and DOB." With the additional information of age, height, weight and eye colour a search can be done and instead of trying to match a face with 500 picture you only get ten.

I agree though that addresses should not be stored. DL# is a convenience as there could be two Tom Smiths born on the same day but DLs are unique.

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

Simply give every club card a unique number.

The number on your Drivers license is not just some useless number, people can invade your privacy simply by having it. Such as access to your driving record. The problem is not someone checking your ID it's when they record it for later abuse.

How exactly do bouncers plan to ban people using their drivers license, if someone wanted to ban me from a pub I certainly would not hand them my license.

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

Have you actually read my posts?

1. Club cards do not deal with tourists and costs quite a bit to implement. Do you really want highet covers and drink prices?

2. When banning someone the bouncer will not use the DL# to find them. They will use the other identifiers; height, hair colour, etc; to narrow down the database and then use the picture on the ID to identify the person. That record will contain the DL# which will be sent to the central database along with the reason for banning.

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

Have you actually read my posts?

1. Club cards do not deal with tourists and costs quite a bit to implement. Do you really want highet covers and drink prices?

Doesn't bother me I'll just go to a cheaper bar that hasn't raised it's prices.

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

As for tourist's they don't have Australian drivers licenses anyway.

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

And the circle is complete.

Why don't you just not go to the bars that swipe your DL in the first place and let those of us who do not mind have a safer place to drink?

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

How does giving away your private information make you safer?

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

Do you really not understand the reason for recording the information the DLs; to be able to ban the idiots who start fights. I am safer by not being punched in the head by some idiot who has done it before in another bar.

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

Buy your going to a bar where violence is clearly a problem.

Privacy violations are not the answer, instead the industry needs to campaign the government to punish offenders. Instead of treating their customers like criminals.

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

"Violence is clearly a problem" in every bar that does not have a way of banning idiots who cause problems.

Are you really advocating tying up police resources and clogging the court system with assault complaints every time someone starts a fight in a bar? And how would one enforce government banning of offenders from bars? A policeman at every bar?

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

No violence is not a problem for most bars, at my local you would be pretty stupid to try and start something because people don't tolerate that sort of behaviour. People go out to have a good time, not to fight.

Yes, assault is a job for the police. Law enforcement is their primary duty.

Re:Why use DLs?

[jklovanc]

Maybe your local pub does not have an issue (and therefore does not need to identify troublemakers) but many nightclubs do. That is the whole reason for needing a way to identify banned people.

BTW, how big is your "local"? Does it have 500+people in it at any one time?

Re:Why use DLs?

[Dan541]

It would have at least 500 people but only for Friday and Saturday night during the week it is quieter. Violence just isn't a part of the culture there. It certainly doesn't need tighter security than an airport.