Pub Patrons Down Under Subject To Biometric Datamining

If it can help reduce random violence by nOw2 · 2011-02-02 00:51 · Score: 2

This is a great idea!
A problem I've seen is people banned from pubs in one town simply moving on to drinking a little further away. It's too easy for them. A nationwide system would help. Those who only go out at night to harm should not be allowed out anywhere...
I would certainly be pleased to have to "sign in" to a pub if means nobody with me is going to randomly glassed or stabbed by someone out to cause trouble.

Re:If it can help reduce random violence by JaredOfEuropa · 2011-02-02 01:35 · Score: 2

Not so great when that goldmine of data gets stolen (and it will...). Fingerprints, licenses... sounds like good stuff for identity thieves. It would be a lot better if the bars ID everyone, but don't store the data and only compare it against the national database of known troublemakers.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by mikael_j · 2011-02-02 01:41 · Score: 2

The biggest problem with a system like this is actually in erroneous bannings.
I have seen way too many times how the bouncers at a bar or club have thrown people out or simply not allowed them entry for no reason at all. Not to mention that trying to have a polite conversation with them can very well result in you being tackled to the ground and getting arrested for "assaulting" the bouncer (with his buddy of course telling the cops he saw the whole thing).
I have myself on several occasions been told I wasn't allowed in because I was "too drunk" even though I had only consumed one or two beers, one time a friend of mine was allowed in seconds before me and he was so drunk he could barely stand up (not to mention that clothing-wise he looked like a mess with torn and dirty clothes). With a system like this I have no doubt that some bouncer somewhere would've put me on the list for trying to figure out why he thought I was drunk when the girl in front of me in the line who smelled like vodka and vomit wasn't. And good luck getting off the list once you're on it...

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by MrKaos · 2011-02-02 02:44 · Score: 1

I have seen way too many times how the bouncers at a bar or club have thrown people out or simply not allowed them entry for no reason at all. Not to mention that trying to have a polite conversation with them can very well result in you being tackled to the ground and getting arrested for "assaulting" the bouncer (with his buddy of course telling the cops he saw the whole thing).
Bouncers at Australian pubs are mostly tools. It's not exactly a stellar career path. Some of them have associations with organised crime and drug dealing - last person on earth I would trust with any of my personal information, very prone to abuse.
My partner and I encountered it at a RSL club and I refused to have my license scanned, my partner wrote a letter and complained pointing out that we had no assurances how the data would be treated and that it also contravened the national privacy principals, which are not law but reputable organisation adhere to.
I can't say I know the answer, the pubs get violent sometimes and I do love a beer in a cold glass but sometimes a plastic cup might be a better idea. It's all about the class of the customer. I'm just glad that I look intimidating enough not to be messed with. I can look after myself but I think violent behavior is just a sign of poor character. As usual it's the lowest common denominator that brings us all down.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by Omestes · 2011-02-02 05:31 · Score: 1

I would certainly be pleased to have to "sign in" to a pub if means nobody with me is going to randomly glassed or stabbed by someone out to cause trouble.
What the hell type of pubs do you go to?
I haven't seen anyone randomly attacked at a pub since college... actually no, I think I saw some random violence at a bar that was having a metal concert 2-3 years ago (wasn't truly random, some guy jumped on the stage and almost knocked over a stack, and promptly got coldcocked by another fan/friend-of-the-band). Why do you pick to go to bars where violence happens? I like a dive bar as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't ever go to one where I had a decent chance of being randomly attacked. Granted, I'm not Australian, but us Americans have the reputation for wanton, and random violence.
I probably would completely eschew any bar that wanted to enter me into a data-base or take any biometrics. I would avoid it faster than a bar that carried a chance of random violence.
Why the hell would anyone not into the whole violence thing go to a bar that is known for violence? If you go to bars like that, you somewhat deserve what you get. Or at least you can't really be surprised that something nasty happens. Why not find a bar that attracts a calmer, more balanced, crowd?

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by cayenne8 · 2011-02-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Not to mention, that I really don't want the govt, and the insurance industry knowing how often I go out to drink, or how MUCH I have (occasionally run bar tabs on CC's..tying that to the pup info would show more detail of what was had, timing, etc)...
That is my business...I don't need to have health insurance or other industries out there knowing yet another one of my lifestyle data points.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by cayenne8 · 2011-02-02 05:47 · Score: 1

"Bouncers at Australian pubs are mostly tools."
Interesting..just made me think, and I can think of VERY few bars I ever have gone to, that actually have bouncers, or at least if they have them, it isn't like they're at the door deciding who gets in. Sometimes, someone is checking ids at the door, but not all the time...often it is up to the bartender to check ID.
But really...about the only places I go to that have bouncer presence that you really see and notice...are strip clubs, and some of the BIGGER crowded places in the Quarter (living in New Orleans)...but other than that, most bars I know of and go to, don't have bouncers at all.
Is the bouncer thing more common outside of the US, in the EU and Oz or something?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by cayenne8 · 2011-02-02 05:51 · Score: 1

"Why not find a bar that attracts a calmer, more balanced, crowd?"
I was thinking along the same lines with regard to your comments on such violent bars.
At the very least I'm thinking...how are you gonna get laid going to such bars? I mean, unless you're married (and sometimes even if you are) isn't one of the main reasons for going to a bar is to find a good looking chick to hook up with?
That ain't gonna happen in a place where people are randomly throwing punches (or worse).

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by PachmanP · 2011-02-02 06:00 · Score: 2

At the very least I'm thinking...how are you gonna get laid going to such bars? I mean, unless you're married (and sometimes even if you are) isn't one of the main reasons for going to a bar is to find a good looking chick to hook up with?

That ain't gonna happen in a place where people are randomly throwing punches (or worse).
Poor english to english translation. They're confusing getting laid out with getting laid.

--
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by mikael_j · 2011-02-02 09:28 · Score: 1

Is the bouncer thing more common outside of the US, in the EU and Oz or something?
Here in Sweden it's pretty common that bars have a couple of guys who are basically police-licensed security guards (very basic training, have a badge, carry batons) at the door, they'll check your ID and tell you to go away if you're too drunk (I believe from a strictly theoretical POV it's not up to them to turn you away if you're too drunk but they just say the bartender told them to throw you out). They're pretty infamous for causing more violence than they prevent, at least at the door since they have a tendency to turn people away just because they feel like it (there have been examples where hidden cameras have caught them doing things like what I mentioned in my previous post, turning people away for being "too drunk" when they were clearly sober, not letting the "wrong" kind of people in or simply assaulting people who wanted to know why they couldn't come in and then claiming that they were the ones who were assaulted).

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by MrKaos · 2011-02-02 10:58 · Score: 1

Is the bouncer thing more common outside of the US, in the EU and Oz or something?
I can't remember a place where I *haven't* seen "doormen". They knock you back for the stupidest reasons like there is some power trip going on. They deliberately provoke people to see if they will react, tell them there shoes aren't right for the club, they don't like the haircut.
Mostly I react by having a laugh with them "But I paid 50 bucks for this shirt mate" to try and defuse them. The other thing is some of the bouncers come to our gym and know me, but it's because I know who they are I don't like the idea of them accessing my information, it's totally ripe for mis-use.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by BasilBrush · 2011-02-02 14:40 · Score: 1

Bouncers may not be the most intelligent people in the world, but on average they know their jobs far better than you. They have far more experience than you. They are breaking up fights every weekend.
The bouncers actions are pretty well aligned with the management of the club. They want to keep the club as near capacity as possible. When the club is fairly empty, they'll be a lot less fussy about who they let in that if it's full. It's easier to get in a club earlier than late.
They don't want trouble. And they'll assess you on that basis. You don't understand the reason that the girl that was drunker than you was let in. But it's perfectly obvious. She's less likely to start a fight than a guy. If you're on your own or in a small mixed party you're far more likely to get in than a group of males.
Then there's dress code. Which can be about serving a particular niche. Or can be about preferring people who are more likely to spend more money on drinks. For sure a club which can attract an affluent crowd don't want to put them off by having scruffy looking people in. Bit it can work the other way too, a club catering to a "cool" crowd of one sort or another may refuse entry to people in business suits.
They'll be judging on these and many other criteria. What may appear to you as a punter to be refused entry "for no reason", actually does usually have perfectly rational reason behind it.
I'm too old to want to go to clubs any more, but in my time I got refused at clubs when I wasn't expecting to go to one, and so wasn't dressed appropriately. I was never refused when I knew I was going and so was dressed appropriately and was in mixed company.
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by Dr+Max · 2011-02-02 15:45 · Score: 1

Why stop there, why don't we take DNA from every patron as well just so we can catch all the date rapists. Hell how about drug test inside the urinal that takes a picture then alerts security if a patron is using amphetamines. Our country is turning in to a police state (no need for stuff like warrants over here), and no one seems to mind being ordered about, all because they are slightly safer at a pub they would never go to any way.

--
Rocket Surgeon.
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by mikael_j · 2011-02-02 19:06 · Score: 1

Bouncers may not be the most intelligent people in the world, but on average they know their jobs far better than you. They have far more experience than you. They are breaking up fights every weekend.
Breaking up fights is their job, yes. No argument from me there.

The bouncers actions are pretty well aligned with the management of the club. They want to keep the club as near capacity as possible. When the club is fairly empty, they'll be a lot less fussy about who they let in that if it's full. It's easier to get in a club earlier than late.
Legal issue: That's not how bouncers ("ordningsvakter") here in Sweden are supposed to work. In fact, they're only supposed to be there to maintain order. They're not employees of the club/bar, they're paid per hour and basically work as contractors hired by the clubs/bars because the police demand the club/bar have n bouncers present (based on the size of the establishment, how often there are fights there, etc.)

They don't want trouble. And they'll assess you on that basis. You don't understand the reason that the girl that was drunker than you was let in. But it's perfectly obvious. She's less likely to start a fight than a guy. If you're on your own or in a small mixed party you're far more likely to get in than a group of males.
I love how you skipped my other examples and just went with the easy-to-refute one.
Also, I've seen "tricks" as disgusting as having two bouncers checking IDs and them deliberately splitting a mixed party into mostly-males and mostly-females, rushing the females past the ID check without even checking IDs and then immediately afterwards telling the male members of the group that the bar is "full"...

Then there's dress code. Which can be about serving a particular niche. Or can be about preferring people who are more likely to spend more money on drinks. For sure a club which can attract an affluent crowd don't want to put them off by having scruffy looking people in. Bit it can work the other way too, a club catering to a "cool" crowd of one sort or another may refuse entry to people in business suits.
Once again, not their job to care about dress code, that's something club/bar employees should handle. And most places I go to aren't exactly upscale establishment, more regular bars and clubs for regular people that will let "anyone" in (but occasionally the bouncers will go on a power trip and tell someone they can't come in for no good reason).

They'll be judging on these and many other criteria. What may appear to you as a punter to be refused entry "for no reason", actually does usually have perfectly rational reason behind it.
So explain why a friend of mine who was wasted, staggering around, dressed like a bum, yelling and hollering was let in and then I, who was sober and not acting like an ass, was told I was "too drunk"...

I'm too old to want to go to clubs any more, but in my time I got refused at clubs when I wasn't expecting to go to one, and so wasn't dressed appropriately. I was never refused when I knew I was going and so was dressed appropriately and was in mixed company.
I've been denied access to a bar with the vague "Your friend behaved badly here." excuse. In fact, that's how I was told I was persona non grata at that bar. Now, after asking around it turns out a few other of my friends have been told similar stories at that club. The problem? That place is pretty damn rowdy, the kind of place where dancing on the tables is often tolerated, and the worst thing I can think of anyone I know having done is one friend yelling to another friend from the second floor balcony down to another friend who was leaving (yelling being pretty much required due to the noise level in that place on a regular weekend night). Now, why I would be denied access for that reason is beyond me.
Not every bouncer is an ass but your position seems to be that they're all nice guys just doing their jobs, it's not that simple either.

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by BasilBrush · 2011-02-03 00:58 · Score: 1

Legal issue: That's not how bouncers ("ordningsvakter") here in Sweden are supposed to work. In fact, they're only supposed to be there to maintain order. They're not employees of the club/bar, they're paid per hour and basically work as contractors hired by the clubs/bars because the police demand the club/bar have n bouncers present (based on the size of the establishment, how often there are fights there, etc.)
OK.

Also, I've seen "tricks" as disgusting as having two bouncers checking IDs and them deliberately splitting a mixed party into mostly-males and mostly-females, rushing the females past the ID check without even checking IDs and then immediately afterwards telling the male members of the group that the bar is "full"...
Which implies actually the bouncers interests ARE aligned with the management. They aren't going to that trouble for their own amusement. They're doing it because the management wants more girls in.

So explain why a friend of mine who was wasted, staggering around, dressed like a bum, yelling and hollering was let in and then I, who was sober and not acting like an ass, was told I was "too drunk"...
Obviously I can't because I wasn't in the position of the bouncers. I don't know what the pair of you looked like. I don't know how the pair of you were dressed. I don't know how the pair of you acted. I don't know the particular club, nor the objectives of it's management. And I haven't been in a position to build up a profile for what sorts of people in that club are likely to start fights, and which are likely to spend more money. There are so many variables that can come into it.
Every person that gets refused entry to a club is annoyed and thinks they've been treated unfairly. It's no surprise that you feel that way too. But that doesn't mean that the bouncers weren't acting rationally according to their objectives in refusing you admission.

your position seems to be that they're all nice guys just doing their jobs
Not at all. Some are nice guys, some are bastards, most are somewhere in between, just like in every other line of employment. What I'm saying is that what they do is not for "no reason". It might look that way to you, but in reality it's mostly about implementing the rational objectives of the management, and using their experience to minimise the likelihood of a fight in the club.
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by mikael_j · 2011-02-03 01:42 · Score: 1

As a follow-up to the "most bouncers are ok guys" bit. Yeah, I think that's possible but here in Sweden we have had a lot of issues with bouncers who have been shown to have ties to organized crime or otherwise have a checkered past to say the least. Basically a lot of people who aren't really fit to have the authority they have end up in that line of work because the basic requirements are basically "look intimidating and be able to subdue just about anyone".
And as I stated in my original post, it's pretty much standard practice for bouncers here to lie about what happened using their authority and colleagues to turn it from being just two differing statements to "these two upstanding authority figures entrusted by the police to blablabla.. claim that the defendant threw the first punch and they only used the minimum force necessary while the defendant claim he just asked why the unwritten dress code only applied to him when he suddenly got tackled to the ground and beaten". While the "offender" is sitting in police custody the bouncers are talking about what "really" happedn ("You saw him hit me first, right?"). Like I stated before, this has been captured with hidden cameras (how one thing happens and they claim something else happened).
That's not saying they all do that, or even that the majority do it, just that there's a large number of bouncers with a seriously bad attitude (I've also met some very nice ones but overall there are a lot of dicks).

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by crafty.munchkin · 2011-02-03 15:01 · Score: 1

This is Australia we are talking about. Government funded Medicare can't be denied to you because of your lifestyle, even if you smoke 3 packs and drink 2 slabs a day. Private health insurance can be, but only if you declare it.

One of the bars close to my house actually does this. The reason they are doing it is to identify troublemakers after a big brawl has occurred. The sad thing is, if you turn up with a passport instead of a drivers license, it won't fit through their little scanner, so you won't have your details recorded, and legally they cannot refuse you entry.

Is it sad that I worked all that out over a pint or two?

--
... wait, what?
Re:If it can help reduce random violence by crafty.munchkin · 2011-02-03 15:12 · Score: 1

For an Australian venue to serve alcohol without serving food, they need to provide licensed security guards. Some stupid amendment made to the liquor licensing act requires it.

--
... wait, what?

I pity the guy... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

.. who dumps a bar manager and finds himself barred from every pub in the land with no right of appeal.

Re:I pity the guy... by thegarbz · 2011-02-02 09:11 · Score: 1

I don't. This is right up there with natural selection. If it means there's less people in the pubs who get themselves trashed and start random bashings then by all means. I'm not a fan of the method, but this is a sign of desperation now. I don't think there's a young person in Brisbane or Sydney who hasn't sustained a blood nose or black eye for no reason other than they went to the pub and some drunk didn't like their face. Actually I'm even more for it if it means lifting our clubbing curfew.

Facebook comes to Meatspace by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-02 01:13 · Score: 4, Funny

So pretty soon we'll have to use a mixture of disguises (including fingerprint covers or gloves) and opting out (not going to bars that do this).

Also:

The databases are virtually free from government regulation as biometrics are not covered by privacy laws, meaning that the handling of details are left to the discretion of technology vendors."

Yay free market! Praise be to Rand!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Facebook comes to Meatspace by JaredOfEuropa · 2011-02-02 01:38 · Score: 2

Yay free market! Praise be to Rand!
Free market != no oversight. Even Rand suggested as much in her books.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Facebook comes to Meatspace by Loosifur · 2011-02-02 02:41 · Score: 1

Well, yeah, yay free market! It's a privately-managed list, opted into by private businesses. Nobody is forcing bar owners to use the system, and nobody's forcing patrons to go to bars that do. If you don't like the idea of your biometric data floating around in some private database, tracking bars you frequent and maintaining records of your (mis-)behavior, vote with your feet: only go to bars that don't use biometrics. If you really, really care, start a campaign to convince other people to avoid biometric bars.
Notice that people are rushing to sign up. That tells me that Australians are more interested in continuing to go to bars and pubs than they are about any privacy issues that might be relevant. And, as someone who's spent six years in the bar/restaurant business, this is just making electronic a system that has traditionally been word-of-mouth. People who work in the bar/restaurant industry hang out with other people in the business, and they swap war stories. By day two of working at a bar you know the problem people: angry drunks, people who've been kicked out of some other place, people who skipped out on a tab from the bar down the street, etc.
What would you prefer, that the Aussie government enacts a bill requiring bars to serve Australians anonymously? The Beer Act of 2011? Yeah, nobody'll make a joke about that on late-night tv...

--
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
Re:Facebook comes to Meatspace by js_sebastian · 2011-02-02 06:10 · Score: 1

Well, yeah, yay free market! It's a privately-managed list, opted into by private businesses. Nobody is forcing bar owners to use the system, and nobody's forcing patrons to go to bars that do. If you don't like the idea of your biometric data floating around in some private database, ...
There are many things that "private businesses" are not allowed to do in any reasonable country. Fact: in europe the bar would not be allowed to store, let alone share with anyone, customer's biometrics without patrons first signing an authorization (and no, walking though the door is not a signature). Also, upon leaving the premises you could request they immediately delete any data they ever had on you.

I say that is a better system, and it is only a loophole in Australian law that allows them to do this. The loophole should be closed.

Re:Thanks Australia by alen · 2011-02-02 01:24 · Score: 2

this is like the shoplifting database in the USA. if you get a conviction for shoplifting there is a database that retailers check and they will refuse you employment based on it and possibly entry into their stores

Re:Thanks Australia by Hope+Thelps · 2011-02-02 01:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Note to self: never go to Australia or any other Nanny State.

How is that a nanny state? It says that the databases AREN'T regulated by the state.

--
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2

What price, freedom? by berryjw · 2011-02-02 01:31 · Score: 2

More and more, we dispense with privacy and freedom in the name of safety and security, although all of human history demonstrates we shall gain neither. There will always be violence, there will always be those who will take by force, and there will always be available to them the tools to commit these acts. Has everyone forgotten the cost of freedom? It is not limited to those casualties of past wars, honored though they may be, but includes the living accepting the chance of injury or death to preserve it. Why are we so willing to squander the chance to live, for fear of death? Each of us will surely die, yet so many seem so willing to quit living, for fear of it. Freedom is the chance to fail, the opportunity to make mistakes, it is by nature uncertain. If we are to maintain it, we must accept mistakes will be made and some will abuse it, be it a bar-room brawler or religious zealot. If we deny the chance of this, we've denied the possibility of success, as well.

Re:What price, freedom? by couchslug · 2011-02-02 03:26 · Score: 1

PRIVATE businesses don't BELONG to the public. The shopkeeper should have "freedom" too.
All that boilerplate is nice, but if you don't want to get blacklisted by bars the fucking behave yourself or get shitfaced at home. An individual bar in the US can get a ban customers, and sharing info about those who are banworthy is merely cooperation.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:What price, freedom? by berryjw · 2011-02-02 04:54 · Score: 1

No, once the shopkeeper opened the door to the public, it became public. There are ample laws, in any country, addressing the consequences of such behavior, be it simply rude, destructive, or deadly. This type of action, like so many others, is evading the law, and denying basic civil liberty. I do not condone anyone's violence, in any place, but accept the reality it will happen, no matter what security theatre is performed. I *do* object to the notion that someone like you can dismiss everyone's rights by enforcing your own bit of 'law', in the name of said theatre. If you don't like the public law, don't invite the public to your place.
Re:What price, freedom? by BatGnat · 2011-02-02 06:49 · Score: 1

$1.05
Re:What price, freedom? by thegarbz · 2011-02-02 09:19 · Score: 1

There will always be violence, there will always be those who will take by force, and there will always be available to them the tools to commit these acts. Has everyone forgotten the cost of freedom?

Spoken like a man who's never been to an Australian city pub. This isn't a government trying to put some stupid perceived safety bullshit up in exchange for being able to watch over us. This is a government who's run out of ideas. Pub violence here is simply bad. Drunken disorderly behaviour here is simply bad. There hasn't been a single day I have been out where I haven't seen some brawl break out, some guy get knockedout, or my personal favourite, some random dude I've never met punched me in the face because he was drunk and thought I looked funny. Going out and waking up in hospital with broken bones and alcohol poisioning is a national passtime here.

The government has come up with many ideas including good ones such as increasing police presence in the districts, and downright stupid ones, such as a 3am curfew which has essentially moved all the pub brawls out to the taxi lineup at 3am.

This isn't some perceived safety. This is them trying to solve a problem. Normally I'm angry at these government attempts to coddle us, but in the past year I've stopped going to the pubs on Friday and Saturday night, so ... where can I sign up to keep these drunk fuckwits out of pubs?
Re:What price, freedom? by WorBlux · 2011-02-02 19:18 · Score: 1

No, you can ask anyone to leave for just about any reason, and if they come back within a year, you can call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing. If you open the door to the public then it creates the presumption that anyone there has been invited. Of course this presumption can be overturned if you can document that you've asked to leave your store and not come back, or set some sort of bouncer up at the door to screen potential entrants.

Tabs by ikkonoishi · 2011-02-02 01:33 · Score: 1

One reason they like this is it means they can let the people run up tabs if they don't have enough for their drinks. So if you only bring $20 with you so you won't spend too much while drunk they can get you to run up a tab, and collect on it later.

Re:Tabs by z0idberg · 2011-02-02 10:34 · Score: 1

Tabs are non-existent in Australian pubs/clubs. You pay for drinks as you get them. You can put you credit card behind the bar in some places but must pay using the card before you leave.
Re:Tabs by WorBlux · 2011-02-02 19:20 · Score: 1

Here you can't open a tab unless you've had a credit card swiped first.

Re:Thanks Australia by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

And this is a bad thing?

Where have you been? by Wowsers · 2011-02-02 01:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Back in the UK, this story caused a lot of concern when it hit the main news.... So much for freedom loving UK.

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4718624.Website_slams_bar_s_fingerprint_policy/?ref=mr

It's now becoming quite popular to want to scan / photograph people before going into night clubs, corresponding in less people going to said clubs and bars.

What the bar owners do with this data nobody knows, but I'm sure they would not miss a trick in selling it or giving it to criminals who want this data.

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.

Re:Where have you been? by Pumpkin+Tuna · 2011-02-02 01:37 · Score: 5, Informative

I have never been to a bar that was so fabulous, so wonderful, that I would give up my fingerprints or even a scan of my license to get in. By the same token, I have never been in a bar or club that I would remotely trust with that information.
Re:Where have you been? by ledow · 2011-02-02 02:46 · Score: 2

And at least the UK places are bound by Data Protection laws with regards the electronic data they collect - sounds like these Aussie pubs aren't.
But then, I echo the sentiment - you want my biometric to do X? Won't be doing X then.
My daughter's nursery wanted my fingerprint in order to ensure that whoever comes to collect her is me or my wife. "What if we weren't available?" I pointed out, given that she's in childcare precisely because we both work all day. "Oh, then you could phone and give us permission to let someone else collect her"... "And then how would you know that the person on the phone was me?" Cue baffled looks, hasty assertions and bluffing to try to cover it.
They never got my fingerprint. And I can still collect her whenever I need to. And if I *can't* there will be merry hell to pay when it comes to collection time. Sorry, it's just a complete misapplication of biometrics, as is the fingerprint-based library system for primary school kids (which I refuse to implement or operate as a school IT manager).
The best way to lose custom is to make it more hassle to deal with you than to not. This applies whether it's not accepting certain (perfectly valid) payment methods, making people go through long-winded registration processes, or just otherwise being an arse about who can give you money and who can't. I'm all for permanently barring anyone who will cause you trouble - and you have to have a bouncer at the door to administer such a system anyway. If your bouncer can't manage the door, and keep out the troublemakers, he shouldn't be there.
Re:Where have you been? by xenobyte · 2011-02-02 02:48 · Score: 1

We also have something similar in the works here in Denmark... A so-called "Hoodlum Register" where violent people are registered and banned from either football events (matches or public screening) or nightclubs. So far they're not linked (two separate systems) but I'm certain they will be linked fairly soon, especially because the same people tend to show up in both registers...
Personally I find it to be a great idea. People that don't know how to behave needs to be taught a lesson they won't forget. A ban for a year is an efficient wake-up-call... when all the mates go to a game or down to the pub to watch a match on the big screen, you're not welcome and will be thrown out if spotted.
If it were up to me, the ban should be extended to all public events or venues... No cinema, no restaurants, no amusement parks, no festivals... for a year or more. That will hurt just as it is supposed to. If it could be combined with a restraining type order with the police that will trigger harsher punishments for relevant offenses (violence, vandalism etc.) while on the ban - it would be perfect. Severe fines are a must too of course.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:Where have you been? by mlts · 2011-02-02 03:01 · Score: 1

True, but with databases these days, when does the info go off the DB? It isn't hard for a third party to get dumps from that database, and create a permanent record that can be used by businesses for extra security.
Yes, someone might be an asshole at a sporting event and deserve a year suspension from it... but the way data is stored forever by third parties, that year can easily turn into a lifetime.
Re:Where have you been? by tlhIngan · 2011-02-02 04:59 · Score: 1

Happened here in Canada as well with a program called BarWatch.
It was, interestingly enough, quite successful that bars in the surrounding areas started picking it up (and the privacy commissioner had to be involved). It was started by a small group of bars in downtown Vancouver and spread out.
Turns out all the seedier characters simply left for bars not in the program, and those in the program saw their business improve as people who were too scared to enter said bars (due to said characters) started coming in droves and improving business.
There's still a few not in the program (it's not mandatory and a bar can choose if they want it or not) - probably making a good buck because they can charge those who can't get into the other bars a nice cover charge and having higher prices.
Re:Where have you been? by petermgreen · 2011-02-02 05:22 · Score: 1

Who administers the scheme?
I find it really worrying that in many places private entities are allowed to collude to punish people without going through the justice system. This applies whether it is bar security or the credit rating agencies. The larger those collusions get the more they get the power to ruin peoples lives.
IMO colluding to punish people should be banned just as we ban colluding to fix prices. Colluding to protect public safety should probablly be allowed but shuold be subject to a court based appeal mechanism.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Where have you been? by darnkitten · 2011-02-02 05:50 · Score: 1

...If it were up to me, the ban should be extended to all public events or venues... No cinema, no restaurants, no amusement parks, no festivals... for a year or more. That will hurt just as it is supposed to. If it could be combined with a restraining type order with the police that will trigger harsher punishments for relevant offenses (violence, vandalism etc.) while on the ban - it would be perfect. Severe fines are a must too of course.
I would like to see a study that tracks the outside effects of such a program. For instance, does it actually cause the banned patron to change his ways; or does he simply take the violence and misbehavior elsewhere? I would be concerned about a possible increase, in both frequency and intensity, of domestic violence among the banned, as their social circles are limited.
Re:Where have you been? by thegarbz · 2011-02-02 09:22 · Score: 1

I'd be happy just to go to any bar these days where there wasn't a risk of someone getting trashed and picking a random fight. Shit even our work Christmas party at the local bowls club two people (from another company) were horridly trashed and started a fight. When they were finished one of them came to me and said "What you looking at cunt, you want some too?" I mean shit I didn't even see most of the fight I was just drinking a beer with workmates.

I for one hope that they roll this out. I hope that it will cause drunken shits to leave the pub districts, and then maybe if I'm lucky they'll revoke this in a few years and I'll go out to the pub again on the weekend.

What are jails for? by GottMitUns · 2011-02-02 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe those particularly violent should be in jail?

Re:What are jails for? by nulldaemon · 2011-02-02 02:05 · Score: 1

Maybe those particularly violent should be in jail?
That may be possible now that we know who they are. I'm concerned about my privacy as well but head out to Hindley St, Adelaide on a Saturday night and you'll start to see why these measures are necessary. Too many people walk around looking for a fight, too many bloody assaults and too many people getting away with it. Having said all that I do think taking your fingerprints is going a little too far; Let's just limit it to scanning patrons' drivers licenses.
Re:What are jails for? by SleazyRidr · 2011-02-02 02:10 · Score: 1

For some reason Australia seems to have a problem with this. The clearest example of this is the biker gangs (one of the groups causing trouble at the night spots). Despite the fact that it is already illegal to be a member of an outlaw gang, and despite the fact that they freely ride around wearing the jackets proclaiming that they are members of said gangs, the police claim that they are powerless to stop them.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Re:What are jails for? by Flipstylee · 2011-02-02 02:52 · Score: 1

nah, jails around my way are for turning civil disobediants (ha) INTO the particularly violent
Re:What are jails for? by couchslug · 2011-02-02 03:30 · Score: 2

How is that Insightful?
People eventually get OUT of jail, and "paying your debt to society" has NOTHING to do with "changing your behavior".
Idealistic bullshit is SO CUTE when it's spouted by folks who never ran a bar. Don't like the rules? Get the fuck out.
That's why so many bars are private clubs. Exclusivity is good.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:What are jails for? by Dishevel · 2011-02-02 05:09 · Score: 2

Maybe if you had random law abiding citizens out having a good time that may or may not be armed with a concealed handgun some of those problems would "Go Away"?

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:What are jails for? by MBC1977 · 2011-02-02 05:31 · Score: 1

Possibly, but one can be violent without committing a crime; unless you are saying just being violent is a crime.

--
Regards,

MBC1977,
Re:What are jails for? by thegarbz · 2011-02-02 09:24 · Score: 1

Unfortunately these people get charged with drunken and disorderly conduct. They get a fine. The fine comes out of their drinking budget for the week. No serious! I actually knew someone who budgeted for the fact that he may get dragged out of the pub by the cops. We're no longer friends.
Re:What are jails for? by couchslug · 2011-02-02 11:07 · Score: 1

"What do we do when every store, not just bars and clubs, start to share this data and now a person is banned from every public place?"
They should have behaved themselves. Consider it an order rather than a request. Also, businesses will cater to the banned the way lending companies do. Segregation by behavior, so to speak.
Thugs can go to thug bars.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:What are jails for? by internettoughguy · 2011-02-02 12:31 · Score: 1

How is that Insightful?
People eventually get OUT of jail, and "paying your debt to society" has NOTHING to do with "changing your behavior".
Idealistic bullshit is SO CUTE when it's spouted by folks who never ran a bar. Don't like the rules? Get the fuck out. That's why so many bars are private clubs. Exclusivity is good.

Don't spend much time in bars do you?

It's the "exclusive" clubs that the agro little fucks like to hang around. I was attacked by three guys coming out of one, all I was doing was waiting for a friend outside a club that refused me entry. I defended myself, and then the fat idiot of a bouncer got the wrong end of the stick and tried to attack me.

My rule of thumb is that if the joint has a bouncer, they have scum for patrons, and it's probably best avoided.

Re:Thanks Australia by donscarletti · 2011-02-02 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Australia's net censorship system is not going to happen. It was proposed, it was debated and in the end it went flat and Australia STILL has no filtering and less site takedowns than the US.

This pub thing is run by certain pubs themselves in order to keep violent patrons out of, it will probably be reviewed by the government if there are undue privacy issues, but this is not a government program, it is on private property, it is not wide spread and it is not mandatory that you drink in the places with this system.

What's your major issue with Australia anyway? The R rated games ban thing? If that's the biggest civil liberties issue in a country, it makes it pretty good by world standards.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

This could be a good thing if done properly by timbo234 · 2011-02-02 01:59 · Score: 2

Anyone who's lived in Australia recently will now about the increasingly restrictive and puritanical direction our alcohol and pub/club licensing laws are going in. The usual reason brought up is the violence, which anecdotally and in my own experience is much worse than in similar places in Europe. However alcohol is seen as the cause of it all so law-abiding people get stung with sky-high alcohol prices (highest in the world outside the Nordic countries) and really restrictive door entry policies and closing hours.

If they setup some proper exclusion scheme to exclude violent people, with proper judicial oversight and judicial right of appeal - perhaps with tribunals similar to the industrial relations ones, we could stop the majority of the violence and do away with the puritanism.

--
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.

Re:This could be a good thing if done properly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 02:46 · Score: 1

Agreed. Simply not frequenting bars/clubs that scan ID etc isnt even an option anymore.... atleast in Perth, they all pretty much do it. Considering the types of characters that own night clubs, its quite a scary situation we're being forced into... but it seems this is the future for most western society.
Re:This could be a good thing if done properly by thegarbz · 2011-02-02 09:27 · Score: 1

My personal favourite: Banning glasses in pubs and requiring they serve beer in plastic cups.

We have a problem! Maybe something harsher than a minor fine should be in order for someone who punches some random in the face because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Re:This could be a good thing if done properly by timbo234 · 2011-02-02 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exactly. Where I'm (temporarily) living in Germany they take a zero-tolerance attitude to fights in nightclubs and bars. A friend of mine was involved in a one-punch fight - the other guy was unharmed and there was no blood. However the bouncers still called the cops, who arrived and took everyone's details etc. In a minor case like that it ended up with just a letter being sent out a few months later saying 'no further action'.
But it's why you can go out at night in Germany very safely - the cops investigate and take seriously every little assault. We need to do that in Australia, and to avoid clogging the courts with minor assaults introduce an exclusion-from-licensed-premises scheme, where the excluded person still has the right to challenge it in court if they wish.
I've even heard of people in Sydney being given suspended sentences over glassings. That needs to stop too, if you glass somebody and cause permanent scarring or even loss of an eye you should expect to spend some years in gaol, it's GBH. It needs to be punished severely for people to get the message that it's not just part of the average nightly brawl that you pick up a glass and go all in.

--
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.

Re:When in Rome by mangu · 2011-02-02 02:01 · Score: 3, Funny

I have always been an advocate of a really big wall around Australia

Do you think it's necessary? It seems to me there's already a really big moat around it.

Re:When in Rome by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 02:43 · Score: 1

They still get out...

Ha, Australia sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 02:46 · Score: 1

Seriously, it's like South Carolina and Jersey Shore had a baby.

Typical. by MrNemesis · 2011-02-02 02:52 · Score: 1

Now I have to sever limbs and pluck out eyes before I get to the pub! This is going to ruin my evenings.

--
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat

Hats off! by sherpajohn · 2011-02-02 02:52 · Score: 2

I was told that I could not enter a pub in Worcester this spring as I was wearing a Tilly Hat. "Dress code" I asked? "No, we just need to be sure the CCTV gets good images of your face in case anything bad happens". This was not even a club per se, though they did have a DJ, there was no dance floor. I have heard there's live music club in Worcester that requires photos, but have not been there yet. I am not one of the - "if you have nothing to hide, why ask for privacy" lot, but on the other hand, if its a requirement of a venue, I'll follow it if I really want to be there.

--

Going on means going far
Going far means returning

Awfully cheap, I'd say by Errol+backfiring · 2011-02-02 03:10 · Score: 1

A simple hack may be sufficient to be free from *insert personal enemy here* in all pubs. And, following Australia a bit, soon in a lot of other places as well.

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!

Re:Thanks Australia by das3cr · 2011-02-02 03:25 · Score: 1

Banning firearms, IMO, is the biggest loss of civil liberty in Australia.

Add to that this insulting idea that you can't have a drink without giving up your identity to an establishment that really has NO RIGHT to have or keep makes it plain that there are some serious problems in that county. I've always wanted to visit it. Have many friends who live there. But if the price of a cocktail is your identity, even your fingerprints? Come on ... why in the world would anyone put up with that?

--
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB

Re:Thanks Australia by AlterRNow · 2011-02-02 03:31 · Score: 2

If it is a life-long punishment, I'd say yes.

Not everyone who does a bad thing will continue doing it indefinitely. How many people do you know that have stolen some sweets from a store when they were younger, but wouldn't dream of doing it now?

Obviously, this can be counter-acted by a "lifetime" for the ban (so it expires after a few months on the first incident, few years on the second and never on the third, for example) or some way of getting removed from the list such as showing you have received help in curbing the behaviour.

--
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.

I'm an Australian by Mr_Plattz · 2011-02-02 03:36 · Score: 1

Dear Ms. Julia Gillard,

As a 20-something tax paying adult I feel this is a topic that needs to be resolved as soon as possible. I am not against bometric or ID scanning, however I am extremely against zero policies being implemented to address this. We must implement the following policies to resolve this:

Do not allow any club/pub/anything to automatically perform these scans without prior consent
Enforce real and strong penalties for pubs/clubs who do not store, protect and secure this information.

Only a few months ago, Vodafone released public information of it's customers. Vodafone is a tech savvy company., I can only imagine how bad the computer information security policies in-place within these clubs/pubs.

I have had my ID scanned in the past at a nightclubs. You line up, the bouncer looks at your ID and immediately (and unethically, if that exists in the bouncer world) passes it to another person who scans it. If you blink, you wouldn't even have realised it. The only thing worse than this is the fact that now my information is "somewhere" in the underground scene in Australia and I have no way of finding out who owns it or how I can have it purged.

Sadly our Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information (Brendan O'Connor) doesn't understand the fundamentals of Information Security.

Please fix this as soon as possible.

Re:I'm an Australian by BatGnat · 2011-02-02 06:51 · Score: 1

Sadly our Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information (Brendan O'Connor) doesn't understand the fundamentals of Information Security.
Since when has any of our Aussie politicians know anything about what their portfolio covers...
Re:I'm an Australian by ElderKorean · 2011-02-02 23:48 · Score: 1

Sadly our Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information (Brendan O'Connor) doesn't understand the fundamentals of Information Security.
Since when has any of our Aussie politicians know anything about what their portfolio covers...
While not a scientist, Barry Jones is probably about as good as we're even going to get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jones_(Australian_politician)
Re:I'm an Australian by BatGnat · 2011-02-03 06:58 · Score: 1

There is always an exception to every rule.

Re:Think about it from an owner's perspective. by mlts · 2011-02-02 03:41 · Score: 2

Isn't that what jails are for?

Take some guy who decides to go for a brawl in the US. There are a number of felony assault, assault and battery, malicious destruction, and criminal trespass charges that can be filed. If he fights back against the police, that would give more felonies. So, in theory, a brawler might be facing 20+ years if the judge decided to drop the hammer and have sentences serve consecutively.

This is why for the most part, brawls in the US are pretty rare.

So much for Wired's prediction by RevWaldo · 2011-02-02 03:47 · Score: 1

In the real future, this guy wouldn't even make it past the front door.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/09/found_divebars/

(Ah well. They were wrong about CueCat too. And Apple. And push. And...)

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

OK - I know this headline sounds bad by tkdog · 2011-02-02 03:56 · Score: 1

Let's remember this is *Australia* so some points to consider 1) It is a penal colony. If these people weren't guilty, their ancestors wouldn't have been sent there; 2) Australia happens to be the richest sources of vital biometrics available - we have to mine it somewhere people; 3) Have you ever been to a bar with an Australian?

Re:OK - I know this headline sounds bad by rubycodez · 2011-02-02 04:15 · Score: 1

4. they hang upside down from the globe by their feet like bats, who cares what batty people do. 5. they talk funny
Re:OK - I know this headline sounds bad by Omestes · 2011-02-02 05:46 · Score: 1

3) Have you ever been to a bar with an Australian?
Yes, and it wasn't a terribly unpleasant experience. First off he drank around 5 Irish Car Bombs, then noticed a rugby match was on the television and suddenly turned autistic outside of a couple strange yelps. I think the closest to violence he got was when someone brought up "Crocodile Dundee" or "shrimps on barbies"...

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey

Joke: Schneier, Ahmadinejad and Hawking walk into by srussia · 2011-02-02 04:25 · Score: 1

...an Australian pub--wait, actually they didn't but for different reasons.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Thanks Australia by drsmithy · 2011-02-02 04:31 · Score: 1

Banning firearms, IMO, is the biggest loss of civil liberty in Australia.

Firearms aren't banned. You just need a good reason to own one.

Note that this is the same situation as pretty much all of the civilised outside America.

Add to that this insulting idea that you can't have a drink without giving up your identity to an establishment that really has NO RIGHT to have or keep makes it plain that there are some serious problems in that county.

I can count on one hand the number of establishments in the US I haven't been carded at when buying a drink for the first time, and it's been 10+ years since I looked even close to being under 21.

This database is in no way law, or any other form of government policy. It is 100% a collaboration of private businesses. As such, it's trivial to avoid - just don't go to one of the establishments that insists on it.

Re:Thanks Australia by Dare+nMc · 2011-02-02 04:41 · Score: 1

Well EU has laws that require, for private corporations also, That disclosure, and consent is needed before sharing identifying data.
US has a similar organization that requires the same treatment of data, but it is currently voluntary (depends on the individual state laws, CA for one does require much of it)
So yeah, the Australian government could certainly help by adding punishments, and enforcements in situations like this, to protect their citizens from being forced into giving up information (since pubs,etc are likely state regulated, competition is limited, and thus the free market is not exerting the needed forces to maintain on it's own.)

Re:Thanks Australia by Candid88 · 2011-02-02 04:43 · Score: 1

But if the price of a cocktail is your identity

No, the price of a cocktail in an Aussie bar is getting beat up for buying a womans drink.

Banning firearms, IMO, is the biggest loss of civil liberty in Australia.

Maybe to you, but you won't find many Aussies wanting guns legalized. Few would even define the absence of guns as a loss of liberty anymore than they'd define the absence of smallpox as a loss of liberty. We aren't particularly eager to imitate America's tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, we'd rather stick to having tens of gun deaths a year.

A minor technical detail... by XDirtypunkX · 2011-02-02 04:46 · Score: 1

The systems in question don't actually store your fingerprint, they store a hash (that should be relatively hard to reverse) based on some finger print information.

Re:Thanks Australia by Dishevel · 2011-02-02 04:59 · Score: 1

A private business has EVERY RIGHT to control who enters and who dose not enter the establishment. As long as it is not based on Race, Sex, Religion, Sexual Orientation or things of that nature.
What gives you the right to tell me how to run my business? Or my home?
You have every right to patronize my business or not.
You need to learn the differences between Governments and Private Businesses. You also should look into the difference between your rights and what you want.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

Re:When in Rome by Nazlfrag · 2011-02-02 05:03 · Score: 2

I know! We'll infest the moat with sharks and crocodiles and poisinous jellyfish and deadly stingrays... oh wait.

Re:Thanks Australia by m50d · 2011-02-02 05:31 · Score: 1

What's your major issue with Australia anyway? The R rated games ban thing? If that's the biggest civil liberties issue in a country, it makes it pretty good by world standards.

What about the ridiculous child porn laws? IIRC they've sent a guy to jail for pictures of Simpsons characters.

--
I am trolling

Re:Thanks Australia by Pi1grim · 2011-02-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Darn it, so when you ban guns, then death from guns go away? Why didn't you just ban murder then? Or are the criminals in Australia reluctant to commit crimes with a gun, that's illegal to own?

Re:Thanks Australia by Candid88 · 2011-02-02 05:49 · Score: 1

Whatever, just point out that while Australia has a few dozen gun deaths a year, the USA has hundreds of times that figure, despite only 10x the population. Thats the facts.

Re:Thanks Australia by cayenne8 · 2011-02-02 05:54 · Score: 1

"Because no bars anywhere else ask for ID."

Well, every since I grew old enough to look like I'm over 21yrs....I never get carded any longer. With me and my crowd, getting carded to check age to drink is pretty much a thing of the past.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Good with the Bad by DarthVain · 2011-02-02 05:55 · Score: 1

I have had a number of bar owners and bouncers as friends in the past, and in one sense it is a good idea.

I know where I am in Canada a lot of bar owners tried to band together to try and curb violence. There is a subset of people who basically like to go to the bar, get drunk and get in a fight. The idea was if you get banned from one bar you get banned from all participating bars, in this way it keeps these people out, and also perhaps acts as a deterrent. The problem was with the implementation. The only way to do it was to have a "picture book" at the entrance for bouncers to look at. However particularly on busy nights, bouncers don't have the luxury of leafing through a book of photos for each patron that wants in, and as a result the experiment was a failure.

At least this way, a bouncer could easily identify you and your "infractions" and based on that decide or have it flagged that you are allowed in or not. So ideally it is good as it keeps the bad apples out from wreaking everyone Else's fun, not to mention driving up costs for everyone.

The bad and the ugly would be that yes, bar owners with a grudge could simply be jerks and abuse the system. With no appeal process, this would be very unfair.

That all said, I seriously doubt this kind of system would be mandatory, and you as a consumer can choose to support one or the other. Of course this might also breed the fight club VS non fight club type situation. Want to get into fistycuffs go to Larry's, want to have a safe time go to Bob's.

Anyway I am not sure of the whole idea, but I think in an ideal world were owners aren't douchebags and are purely driven by profit (i.e. they want to let in as many people as possible) it might work.

Re:Thanks Australia by cayenne8 · 2011-02-02 05:58 · Score: 1

"What gives you the right to tell me how to run my business? Or my home?
You have every right to patronize my business or not.

The same government that has pretty much all over the nation (at least in the US) determined that a private business owner of say, a bar...can NOT allow a legal activity such as smoking. Same arguments you've made here have been made, I agree with them...but yet, you see it happening all over the US. Thankfully it hasn't gone 100% that way in New Orleans, but they did get a partial ban on some places through (if your food sales are > booze sales, casinos exempted).

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Thanks Australia by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2011-02-02 06:18 · Score: 1

private business has EVERY RIGHT to control who enters and who dose not enter the establishment. As long as it is not based on Race, Sex, Religion, Sexual Orientation or things of that nature.

That's your view. My view is that businesses should not be allowed to take part in blanket discrimination based on any arbitrary criteria. Proscribing that only certain attributes are worthy of protection, and everyone else can suck it up is a terribly bad way of doing things. It draws a line, and dares people to dance as close to it as they can.

--
FGD 135

Re:Thanks Australia by kevinNCSU · 2011-02-02 06:48 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I would call a history of starting bar fights "arbitrary criteria" for not allowing a patron into your bar.

Re:Thanks Australia by 1u3hr · 2011-02-02 07:05 · Score: 1

Darn it, so when you ban guns, then death from guns go away?

Correct. That's how it works everywhere, except the USA.

Re:Oh well, another country by vlad30 · 2011-02-02 09:27 · Score: 1

actually scanning of licences started 3-4 years ago in Sydney and biometrics has been trialled for at over a year in the bigger clubs RSL, Leagues etc that try to be family friendly its now filtering down to the pubs and smaller clubs, a large number of which are in financial difficulty due to falling patronage possibly caused by this random violence

--
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you

Re:When in Rome by vlad30 · 2011-02-02 09:34 · Score: 1

They still get out...

No the Kiwis still get in

--
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you

Re:When in Rome by deniable · 2011-02-02 10:30 · Score: 1

It's not working. The kiwis still get in.

Drivers licenses are only for driving by jabberw0k · 2011-02-02 10:47 · Score: 1

Why would you willingly show your driver's license to anyone who is not a cop, and furthermore when you are not driving? You are giving away your full legal name, home address, date of birth, and other information that could be used to steal your identity. The only person who should see your driver's license is the cop that pulls you over. When not driving, leave your license at home, or in the glove box.

Re:Thanks Australia by mywhitewolf · 2011-02-02 10:54 · Score: 1

Its about the availability of getting that gun to commit the crime. the harder it is, the less likely it is to occur, obviously it's not impossible though.

FYI its not illegal to have guns in Australia, you just need to be part of a gun club (which store your gun or you can store it at home in a vault) Or own a property of a certain size. the average citizen in Australia has no desire to have a gun and is happy the next door neighbor doesn't have one either.

what I'd like to note though is the way you see the police deal with people in the UK and Australia compared to America. They seem to be more relaxed and less oppressive, i guess its because they don't have to worry about being shot constantly.

Re:When in Rome by mangu · 2011-02-02 11:31 · Score: 1

sharks with lasers?

Sure! Swimming down Main Street

Re:Think about it from an owner's perspective. by z0idberg · 2011-02-02 11:38 · Score: 1

So, in theory, a brawler might be facing 20+ years if the judge decided to drop the hammer and have sentences serve consecutively.

This is why for the most part, brawls in the US are pretty rare.

And why the gaols are full.

Yeah, yeah - I said gaol.

Re:Oh well, another country by Dr+Max · 2011-02-02 16:00 · Score: 1

Odd dress restrictions, however, would be another matter.

I have no idea how they figure out what shoes are acceptable. I swear its more complicated than string theory but the thugs at the door that enforce it some how wrap there minds around it (granted they could never explain it) and they aren’t Nobel prize winners.

--
Rocket Surgeon.

Re:Thanks Australia by WorBlux · 2011-02-02 19:11 · Score: 1

The U.S is over 10X the population of Australia. And any given gun if the U.S. is less likely to cause a death than any given automobile. You don't consider automobiles a plague do you? And btw the price you pay is an increase in home invasions and armed robbery.

Re:Thanks Australia by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2011-02-03 11:13 · Score: 1

oh, I agree, but that's not really an arbitrary criteria. (Maybe I'm using 'arbitrary' wrong, I just mean some criteria of their unilateral choosing for which they can present no good reason.)

If a bar were to, say, conclude that people from a certain area of town had a propensity towards starting bar fights, and starting refusing entry based upon the address on their drivers license, that wouldn't be ok (to my view).

--
FGD 135

Slashdot Mirror

Pub Patrons Down Under Subject To Biometric Datamining

103 of 138 comments (clear)