Theoretically, the state-run systems don't allow the individual site to store the data. It would be transmitted to some state system (which already has all your information anyway) before it is decided, and only a "yes" or "no" is sent back.
I know of no state run systems like scanning IDs, it's all strictly a matter of company or store policy.
Having a state ID card is no guarantee that you are going to get served. I have been refused more than once because my state ID card was not a driver's license. I have also been refused because a U.S. passport isn't a driver's license.
This brings up a stick situation. Legally state ids and passports have to be accepted as ID, yet businesses have the right to refuse services or to sale to an individual. What's needed in this case is proof a business is discriminated against ids and passports.
You want to be mad at the barman, but the reality is that the law is written to require a driver's license.
And what of those who don't drive, like you? I'm pretty sure Brazil has more people who don't drive than the US does, as percentage. Or was this in the US? In that case, states issue ID cards as well as driver's licenses.
This is probably going to be coming over to the UK soon as well.
Just as well, in the States we have the nanny state entering our lives more and more. For instance those CC cameras all over the Isles, they're being brought over here. NYC mayor Bloomberg wants to install them all over New York City. And they're cropping up elsewhere in the US too.
I am opposed to drugs that result in environmental pollutants that could easily affect people other than the person who is choosing to use it (basically anything that is smoked, including cigarettes)
Though I smoke I only smoke outside or in my car, and I haven't had someone in my car in years.
I am opposed to people who take drugs of any sort, then proceed to do unfortunate things
If a person commits a crime they should be arrested and if they harm someone they should be held accountable whether drugs are involved or not. Those who want to responsibly use a drug shouldn't be stopped.
I could honestly care less if you want to shoot, snort, drink, or smoke anything in your own home. I'm not opposed to drug use because it's against my morals so no one should do it, I'm opposed to drug use touching on people who want nothing to do with it. You can have all the liberty you want, so long as it doesn't run into mine.
Ok, it seems we look at it similarly. Let people do what they want but hold them accountable.
I think that your reply shows a certain amount of paranoia, not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's easier to live if certain good faith assumptions are made.
But what assumptions are those? That governments won't do anything bad? Governments have persecuted and killed far more people than anything else. Or that businesses won't do anything bad? Where's Enron and WorldCom now? How about Exxon and Union Carbide?
Everyone is up in arms about what COULD be done with these databases. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that any of these things would be legal, or would be tolerated by the public in general. Are there not enough problems already with data mining and intrusion into our personal behavior that we must seek out things that might potentially be abuses in the future?
So you want to wait until it's too late to do anything? "When they came for me"... Yea let them have more rope to hang you with. I guess it doesn't matter much to you but I want to stop it before it does get bad.
One of the things that has been interesting to me here is the difference of how prohibited goods like alcohol and cigarettes are treated in terms of minors.
Yea, when I was there parents could legally order and serve their minor child an alcoholic drink. I found it natural to see someone order a glass of wine or a beer for a minor. Try that in the US and you'll be lucky if you're not arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and lose custody of the child.
I must say, I always get screwed when I come back to America to visit and try to go to a bar or buy beer, because I have completely gotten used to not having to bring an ID with me, even though I am clearly over 18/21.
It bothered me some when I was with some friends and we went to a bar (in the US), though I could be the oldest person I'd be the only one carded. This happened even when I was in my 30s and I had a beard.
In Germany, you only have to be 16 to buy alcohol. There is talk of raising this (and the cigarette age) up to 18, but frankly, it won't make much of a difference given the easy access to either substance. The really [i]nice[/i] thing about this is that you are therefore of drinking age before you are able to drive. Thus, by the time that kids learn how to drive, they've already learned how to hold their liquor, and are less likely to make a stupid mistake like getting behind the wheel.
That's why I oppose laws making it illegal for parents to serve their children alcohol. There's a big difference between letting a teenager sip alcohol some and letting them drink so much they get drunk. Allowing them to drink a little allows them to get used to drinking responsibly. In the US though it's not uncommon for a young adult to go a on a binge and drink too much once they reach the age of maturity.
none of that 3.2% crap
My fav beer there was a smoked beer. One of the the things I brought back with me was an empty 1 letter bottle I got at a festival. I also brought back a love for espresso and I ended up filling the bottle with some to take with me to many places. And straight not au lait, with milk.
No, what needs to happen is a little education of the public and then vote with your feet. I still will not enter a store because they use ID scanners. I have absolutely no problem driving out of my way to an Apple Valley liquor store to buy beer because they don't scan. I still tell them, every time, that I'm there because they protect my privacy.
Apple Valley? Over on Lyndale a few minutes walk I know of two liquor stores, a few of bars, but mostly some cafes. I've been in one of the liquor stores and they don't card, well they haven't carded me. Then again right up the road is that college.
That's because weed wasn't legal when they made alcohol illegal;-)
If by "weed" you mean hemp aka marijuana, it was legal prior to and during Prohibition. Prohibition in the United States was from 1920 to 1933. Hemp was made illegal by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Prior to it's passage hemp, those who demonized it called it marijuana, was perfectly legal. Many of the USA'a Founding Fathers even grew hemp on their farms. Thomas Jefferson once said farmers should be required to grow hemp, however because he knew such a law would limit farmers' right he never proposed it.
The Feds OUGHT to do is (I suppose they already did) get a dump of all ID's and cross-reference them with the legitimately-obtained REALID issues but NOT take the old IDs away. This way, states which can validate/verify their prior issues can allow multi-state residents to satisfy banking/property/other legal issues.
BS! The feds not only have no reason to do this but also has no constitutional authority to do so. You want to give the feds that authority then propose an amendment to the constitution.
Only if you narrow it down to the point where you can identify how much you will pay out to *each person*. Noticing a higher rate of accidents among frequent drinkers (again, I don't know if this exists) still accomplishes the function of insurance, which is to spread the risk of things *that cannot be more precisely predicted*. In such an exercise, you still don't know if any one person in that class will have an accident, just that (if true) a higher fraction of them will require a payout.
Ah but that's already taken care of. When you had an accident it goes into a db insurance has access to when it's reported and they raise your premium when you renew, or they refuse to renew your insurance. Have you ever seen those ad by Progressive saying they forgive your first accident? Because of an accident I've been denied health insurance, not auto but health. And I had no insurance when I had the accident therefore no insurance paid for my medical bills. That may sound like I was driving uninsured but I wasn't, I was in college riding my bike after classes when a moving van, that was weaving all over the road, hit me. I have no memory of it but witnesses had to chase the driver down and force him to stop. He supposedly had a seizure while driving.
This may have been going on for years in some places -- though keep in mind, this isn's just about the act of scanning the card, it's about what's being done with the information. Do you know, do you only assume, or do you not care whether the store actually stored and later shared your info?
I have suspicions but no I don't know what's done when they scan IDs. And I do care, no matter what they do, otherwise I would not of stopped going there. The same goes with other purchases I make, as much as I can I pay cash, about the only tyme I willingly use either check card or credit card is when I grocery shop. Even then though I try to pay cash at least when I go to one of the coops I belong to as using these cards costs them more money than paying with cash.
By the way, even just scanning the cards has not been going on for years where I am (MO). Nor anywhere I've had a drink. In fact, I've never run into it. And I'll be happily surprised if I never do.
Besides MGM I've been in two other stores that scan ID when buying alcohol, both grocery stores. So I don't buy alcohol from them either.
Anyhow, if you don't go out to drink and don't care about buying alcohol other than your own brew, good for you; this article tells you nothing you need to know. That again puts you
in the minority, unfortunately.
Obviously I do buy alcohol in stores. Though I want to start again I haven't brewed in years. Also I don't have a still and mostly I buy snaps, rum, and tequila.
What I care about, is what rights I have, which is what prevents a totalitarian government
And anonymity, privacy, is one of those rights. The right to remain anonymous is a basic part of the right to free speech. Anyone who can't reasonably remain anonymous does not have the right to speak out due to any concern that what they say can be used against them. Most of the pamphlets supporting the American Revolutionary War were written and published anonymously. Take the "Federalist Papers".
By arguing over the collection of information, you make yourself look guilty.
And by supporting collection of information you look like you support a dictatorship. But say you don't, would you like your opponent to have access to all of your data? Would you be comfortable with the Taliban, either those in Afghanistan or the Christian Talibans in the US, having that info? If you're a Muslim Ann Coulter wants to carpet bomb you.
I don't think you're a troll but I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
1) a great argument for national, single payer healthcare like in most of the rest of the non-3rd world.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
2) What the fuck are you talking about? If I'm an alcoholic, my company doesn't have any responsibility to pay for my treatment, except as it regards medical costs (see point one).
The employer has no responsibility for anyone's treatment unless it is work related. It is the responsibility of health insurance unless a clause in the coverage excludes it.
Frankly I think society is far too permissive of alcoholism and drunk driving, and I'd like to see that changed.
I too would change the law, but I'd do it differently. I'd lower the legal blood alcohol level and make it harder for someone convicted of dwi/dui to get a new license. You may do the same but here's what I'd change you may not agree with, I'd allow parents to order and serve alcoholic beverages to their minor children, both at home and while dining out.
I wish there were just one politician with the balls to be honest and say "yeah, I could say that this is for your safety or to help make the world a better place, but really we just want to invade your privacy so that we can have a society increasingly under central control." They are too cowardly to be so honest and it's fitting that they are elected by people too cowardly to value freedom more than security.
In a way Ron Paul said something like this. He was interviewed on CNN and he came right out and said point blank that if he were elected president one of the things he would do would be to pardon people in prison for drug offenses. I'm not sure exactly who he meant but from what he said I think that he meant those who were busted for possession and were users.
Corporations, on the other hand, should be regulated tightly. Because they have a legal obligation to put profit ahead of everything else
Actually corporations' first obligation is the advancement of the common or public good. Corporations were originally granted their charter for the public good but if the corporation no longer served that purpose the charter could be revoked. In 1602 the Dutch East India Company was granted a corporate charter, and was the first to issue stocks, for this very reason. And 2 year later the Honourable East India Company was granted the charter for the same reason.
Of course today corporations are no longer held to the stipulation that they improve the common good.
Note that many people do indeed consider cookies a privacy violation even though they typically don't have as much potential as these ID scans to cause harm. And those people, if they're informed enough to know, have an option -- turn off cookies. That's minimally what this type of article is about: informing people so they can make a choice. (I certainly wasn't aware that this was going on...)
This has been going on for years. Back in 1999 or 2000 I went into an MGM liquor store and paid cash for a bottle of rum. The cashier asked for my ID, which because I had worked in a store selling beer I IDed everyone myself I had no problem showing it, however she then scanned it. I asked her what she was doing and she said company policies required everyone who bought alcohol or tobacco to have their IDs scanned. If I had known she was going to scan it I would have simply left without handing it over. As it is I have never gone back into an MGM store.
Can I avoid these scanners if I so choose? Well, I can choose not to drink in places that use them, but might that eventually mean choosing not to drink?
It won't stop me from drinking. I don't drink much to begin with, I still have 3 bottles of beer from a 12 pack I bought a few months ago, but I can always make my own drinks. I home brew, er I used to but want to start brewing again. A couple of weeks ago I was going through my brew equipment and found a brew kit for some smoked ale that expired and went bad as well as some grains.
Adobe clearly has decided that it isn't worth the effort porting PhotoShop to Linux. And since Linux software development has gotten a lot easier than Solaris/IRIX development used to be, difficulty of creating a Linux version can't be the issue. So what are you getting at? What do you think is the reason they aren't doing it?
I was arguing Adobe should release Photoshop for Linux. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on one. It took more than a year for them to develop and release Photoshop for Intel Macs once the Intel Macs were released. And it's only been lately that Linux has become a viable platform for the average user.
Slashdot Mirror
Theoretically, the state-run systems don't allow the individual site to store the data. It would be transmitted to some state system (which already has all your information anyway) before it is decided, and only a "yes" or "no" is sent back.
I know of no state run systems like scanning IDs, it's all strictly a matter of company or store policy.
FalconHaving a state ID card is no guarantee that you are going to get served. I have been refused more than once because my state ID card was not a driver's license. I have also been refused because a U.S. passport isn't a driver's license.
This brings up a stick situation. Legally state ids and passports have to be accepted as ID, yet businesses have the right to refuse services or to sale to an individual. What's needed in this case is proof a business is discriminated against ids and passports.
FalconThat store now has a nice record saying they carefully verified the age of ever customer purchasing alcohol or tobacco.
They also now have some nice info they can sell to marketers.
FalconAlso of good note is that the new passports have RFID in them... and I am not sure yet what legal limits there may be in deactivating that.
Drop a sledge hammer on it, if need be several tymes.
FalconYou want to be mad at the barman, but the reality is that the law is written to require a driver's license.
And what of those who don't drive, like you? I'm pretty sure Brazil has more people who don't drive than the US does, as percentage. Or was this in the US? In that case, states issue ID cards as well as driver's licenses.
FalconThis is probably going to be coming over to the UK soon as well.
Just as well, in the States we have the nanny state entering our lives more and more. For instance those CC cameras all over the Isles, they're being brought over here. NYC mayor Bloomberg wants to install them all over New York City. And they're cropping up elsewhere in the US too.
FalconI am opposed to drugs that result in environmental pollutants that could easily affect people other than the person who is choosing to use it (basically anything that is smoked, including cigarettes)
Though I smoke I only smoke outside or in my car, and I haven't had someone in my car in years.
I am opposed to people who take drugs of any sort, then proceed to do unfortunate things
If a person commits a crime they should be arrested and if they harm someone they should be held accountable whether drugs are involved or not. Those who want to responsibly use a drug shouldn't be stopped.
I could honestly care less if you want to shoot, snort, drink, or smoke anything in your own home. I'm not opposed to drug use because it's against my morals so no one should do it, I'm opposed to drug use touching on people who want nothing to do with it. You can have all the liberty you want, so long as it doesn't run into mine.
Ok, it seems we look at it similarly. Let people do what they want but hold them accountable.
FalconI think that your reply shows a certain amount of paranoia, not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's easier to live if certain good faith assumptions are made.
But what assumptions are those? That governments won't do anything bad? Governments have persecuted and killed far more people than anything else. Or that businesses won't do anything bad? Where's Enron and WorldCom now? How about Exxon and Union Carbide?
Everyone is up in arms about what COULD be done with these databases. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that any of these things would be legal, or would be tolerated by the public in general. Are there not enough problems already with data mining and intrusion into our personal behavior that we must seek out things that might potentially be abuses in the future?
So you want to wait until it's too late to do anything? "When they came for me"... Yea let them have more rope to hang you with. I guess it doesn't matter much to you but I want to stop it before it does get bad.
FalconJust out of random curiosity, how the fuck do BAC tests sidestep the 5th amendment?
The way it's framed is that driving is a privilege not a right and in order to enjoy the privilege you have to be willing to give up something.
FalconOne of the things that has been interesting to me here is the difference of how prohibited goods like alcohol and cigarettes are treated in terms of minors.
Yea, when I was there parents could legally order and serve their minor child an alcoholic drink. I found it natural to see someone order a glass of wine or a beer for a minor. Try that in the US and you'll be lucky if you're not arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and lose custody of the child.
I must say, I always get screwed when I come back to America to visit and try to go to a bar or buy beer, because I have completely gotten used to not having to bring an ID with me, even though I am clearly over 18/21.
It bothered me some when I was with some friends and we went to a bar (in the US), though I could be the oldest person I'd be the only one carded. This happened even when I was in my 30s and I had a beard.
In Germany, you only have to be 16 to buy alcohol. There is talk of raising this (and the cigarette age) up to 18, but frankly, it won't make much of a difference given the easy access to either substance. The really [i]nice[/i] thing about this is that you are therefore of drinking age before you are able to drive. Thus, by the time that kids learn how to drive, they've already learned how to hold their liquor, and are less likely to make a stupid mistake like getting behind the wheel.
That's why I oppose laws making it illegal for parents to serve their children alcohol. There's a big difference between letting a teenager sip alcohol some and letting them drink so much they get drunk. Allowing them to drink a little allows them to get used to drinking responsibly. In the US though it's not uncommon for a young adult to go a on a binge and drink too much once they reach the age of maturity.
none of that 3.2% crap
My fav beer there was a smoked beer. One of the the things I brought back with me was an empty 1 letter bottle I got at a festival. I also brought back a love for espresso and I ended up filling the bottle with some to take with me to many places. And straight not au lait, with milk.
Falconthe presence of a BAC test alone should be more than sufficient to produce a conviction.
Only if you want to falsely convict an innocent person. There are false positives with BAC tests.
FalconNo, what needs to happen is a little education of the public and then vote with your feet. I still will not enter a store because they use ID scanners. I have absolutely no problem driving out of my way to an Apple Valley liquor store to buy beer because they don't scan. I still tell them, every time, that I'm there because they protect my privacy.
Apple Valley? Over on Lyndale a few minutes walk I know of two liquor stores, a few of bars, but mostly some cafes. I've been in one of the liquor stores and they don't card, well they haven't carded me. Then again right up the road is that college.
FalconI am opposed to the use of mind-altering substances in general, and specifically those which result in second-hand smoke.
Are you opposed just for you or for everyone? If for everyone why? Don't you like liberty?
That's because weed wasn't legal when they made alcohol illegal ;-)
If by "weed" you mean hemp aka marijuana, it was legal prior to and during Prohibition. Prohibition in the United States was from 1920 to 1933. Hemp was made illegal by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Prior to it's passage hemp, those who demonized it called it marijuana, was perfectly legal. Many of the USA'a Founding Fathers even grew hemp on their farms. Thomas Jefferson once said farmers should be required to grow hemp, however because he knew such a law would limit farmers' right he never proposed it.
FalconThe Feds OUGHT to do is (I suppose they already did) get a dump of all ID's and cross-reference them with the legitimately-obtained REALID issues but NOT take the old IDs away. This way, states which can validate/verify their prior issues can allow multi-state residents to satisfy banking/property/other legal issues.
BS! The feds not only have no reason to do this but also has no constitutional authority to do so. You want to give the feds that authority then propose an amendment to the constitution.
FalconIt's still early in the year, give it more tyme.
FalconOnly if you narrow it down to the point where you can identify how much you will pay out to *each person*. Noticing a higher rate of accidents among frequent drinkers (again, I don't know if this exists) still accomplishes the function of insurance, which is to spread the risk of things *that cannot be more precisely predicted*. In such an exercise, you still don't know if any one person in that class will have an accident, just that (if true) a higher fraction of them will require a payout.
Ah but that's already taken care of. When you had an accident it goes into a db insurance has access to when it's reported and they raise your premium when you renew, or they refuse to renew your insurance. Have you ever seen those ad by Progressive saying they forgive your first accident? Because of an accident I've been denied health insurance, not auto but health. And I had no insurance when I had the accident therefore no insurance paid for my medical bills. That may sound like I was driving uninsured but I wasn't, I was in college riding my bike after classes when a moving van, that was weaving all over the road, hit me. I have no memory of it but witnesses had to chase the driver down and force him to stop. He supposedly had a seizure while driving.
FalconThis may have been going on for years in some places -- though keep in mind, this isn's just about the act of scanning the card, it's about what's being done with the information. Do you know, do you only assume, or do you not care whether the store actually stored and later shared your info?
I have suspicions but no I don't know what's done when they scan IDs. And I do care, no matter what they do, otherwise I would not of stopped going there. The same goes with other purchases I make, as much as I can I pay cash, about the only tyme I willingly use either check card or credit card is when I grocery shop. Even then though I try to pay cash at least when I go to one of the coops I belong to as using these cards costs them more money than paying with cash.
By the way, even just scanning the cards has not been going on for years where I am (MO). Nor anywhere I've had a drink. In fact, I've never run into it. And I'll be happily surprised if I never do.
Besides MGM I've been in two other stores that scan ID when buying alcohol, both grocery stores. So I don't buy alcohol from them either.
Anyhow, if you don't go out to drink and don't care about buying alcohol other than your own brew, good for you; this article tells you nothing you need to know. That again puts you in the minority, unfortunately.
Obviously I do buy alcohol in stores. Though I want to start again I haven't brewed in years. Also I don't have a still and mostly I buy snaps, rum, and tequila.
FalconWhat I care about, is what rights I have, which is what prevents a totalitarian government
And anonymity, privacy, is one of those rights. The right to remain anonymous is a basic part of the right to free speech. Anyone who can't reasonably remain anonymous does not have the right to speak out due to any concern that what they say can be used against them. Most of the pamphlets supporting the American Revolutionary War were written and published anonymously. Take the "Federalist Papers".
By arguing over the collection of information, you make yourself look guilty.
And by supporting collection of information you look like you support a dictatorship. But say you don't, would you like your opponent to have access to all of your data? Would you be comfortable with the Taliban, either those in Afghanistan or the Christian Talibans in the US, having that info? If you're a Muslim Ann Coulter wants to carpet bomb you.
I don't think you're a troll but I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
Falcon1) a great argument for national, single payer healthcare like in most of the rest of the non-3rd world.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
2) What the fuck are you talking about? If I'm an alcoholic, my company doesn't have any responsibility to pay for my treatment, except as it regards medical costs (see point one).
The employer has no responsibility for anyone's treatment unless it is work related. It is the responsibility of health insurance unless a clause in the coverage excludes it.
FalconFrankly I think society is far too permissive of alcoholism and drunk driving, and I'd like to see that changed.
I too would change the law, but I'd do it differently. I'd lower the legal blood alcohol level and make it harder for someone convicted of dwi/dui to get a new license. You may do the same but here's what I'd change you may not agree with, I'd allow parents to order and serve alcoholic beverages to their minor children, both at home and while dining out.
FalconI wish there were just one politician with the balls to be honest and say "yeah, I could say that this is for your safety or to help make the world a better place, but really we just want to invade your privacy so that we can have a society increasingly under central control." They are too cowardly to be so honest and it's fitting that they are elected by people too cowardly to value freedom more than security.
In a way Ron Paul said something like this. He was interviewed on CNN and he came right out and said point blank that if he were elected president one of the things he would do would be to pardon people in prison for drug offenses. I'm not sure exactly who he meant but from what he said I think that he meant those who were busted for possession and were users.
FalconCorporations, on the other hand, should be regulated tightly. Because they have a legal obligation to put profit ahead of everything else
Actually corporations' first obligation is the advancement of the common or public good. Corporations were originally granted their charter for the public good but if the corporation no longer served that purpose the charter could be revoked. In 1602 the Dutch East India Company was granted a corporate charter, and was the first to issue stocks, for this very reason. And 2 year later the Honourable East India Company was granted the charter for the same reason.
Of course today corporations are no longer held to the stipulation that they improve the common good.
FalconNote that many people do indeed consider cookies a privacy violation even though they typically don't have as much potential as these ID scans to cause harm. And those people, if they're informed enough to know, have an option -- turn off cookies. That's minimally what this type of article is about: informing people so they can make a choice. (I certainly wasn't aware that this was going on...)
This has been going on for years. Back in 1999 or 2000 I went into an MGM liquor store and paid cash for a bottle of rum. The cashier asked for my ID, which because I had worked in a store selling beer I IDed everyone myself I had no problem showing it, however she then scanned it. I asked her what she was doing and she said company policies required everyone who bought alcohol or tobacco to have their IDs scanned. If I had known she was going to scan it I would have simply left without handing it over. As it is I have never gone back into an MGM store.
Can I avoid these scanners if I so choose? Well, I can choose not to drink in places that use them, but might that eventually mean choosing not to drink?
It won't stop me from drinking. I don't drink much to begin with, I still have 3 bottles of beer from a 12 pack I bought a few months ago, but I can always make my own drinks. I home brew, er I used to but want to start brewing again. A couple of weeks ago I was going through my brew equipment and found a brew kit for some smoked ale that expired and went bad as well as some grains.
FalconAdobe clearly has decided that it isn't worth the effort porting PhotoShop to Linux. And since Linux software development has gotten a lot easier than Solaris/IRIX development used to be, difficulty of creating a Linux version can't be the issue. So what are you getting at? What do you think is the reason they aren't doing it?
I was arguing Adobe should release Photoshop for Linux. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on one. It took more than a year for them to develop and release Photoshop for Intel Macs once the Intel Macs were released. And it's only been lately that Linux has become a viable platform for the average user.
Falcon