kt0157

What are you screeching about? You must have the nerve of Old Nick himself to start lecturing people on use of language.

K.

Biiiiink

Whatever you do, don't hang around outside the pub trying to decide - you'll likely be deafened by the Mosquito :scared:

neill

This is a slippery slope.

I'm all for punishing criminals, but what next... all establishments sign on to some kind of 'national fingerprint bank' (commercialy run, not by the government), paid for by the private sector. Why? It's like insurance. You don't insure the people you know are bad. You don't even give them a second chance.

The same thing's going to happen. One mistake and your fingerprints are 'black marks'.... forget about entering any 'privately-owned' establishment... for life maybe? This needs to be thought out properly by the government, and fast.

kt0157

Hey, you know what that company is doing now? Selling ringtones that teachers can't hear! How about that for lateral-thinking.

K.

kt0157

It *is* being thought out by the Government. They Government is actively encouraging private industry to sign up to get access to the ID card database to do exactly what you are talking about. The Government will do the registration of the people for them, and then companies get to use it without having to bother with issuing cards, selling replacement cards, re-registering people, etc. (there are fairly expensive access fees envisaged for the private companies: the Government sees selling access and data as a way of recouping some of the running costs of the scheme).

The risks of becoming a blacklisted "non-person" are very real. Take a look at the No2ID web site for more details on this. It's truly horrifying.

K.

Rich_007

Revelations. Go read it. We're doomed I tell you !!!

Science + politics = oppression

Rich

dbd33

The use of personal information held on government computers for commercial purposes is well established in Europe. Ages ago I worked on a system, one I know still to be in use, which used a database of vehicle registrations to determine likely buyers of specific new cars (usually changes car every two years, has had a Ford repeatedly, has an eighteen month old Ford, etc.) and to sell the information (in this case to VW, GM and so on).
I question the claim above that similar use can be made of such information in the US and in Canada, I think it's specifically illegal in the US and that it doesn't happen very much in Canada.

kt0157

It's not supposed to be legal in the UK. The companies that have access to the DVLA database are supposed to be authorised to use it for very specific purposes of law enforcement (where parking has been outsourced from local Government). But it's being widely abused, and the Government is now looking into it as a matter of urgency.

The ID card database is, on the other hand, expressly designed for third party access. See this , for example.

Is it legal? The UK law will be drafted (and has been passed) to expressly make it legal. That might not hold at the European level. We'll see.

K.

MrGreen

Anything that makes it safer for normal people to sup a few pints in safety is a good thing by me. Having seen some pretty appauling things happen in pubs, I would happily give them my prints at the door in exchange for a ban on scallys and a safer environment for the rest of us.

windward

They've had biometric scans of some sort or another at the upmarket bars in Manchester the footballers tend to frequent for a while now. Though in that case it was to ensure non-members and blaggers were kept out I think.

It all seems a bit suspect to me.

"Any country that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"

-Benjamin Franklin

dbd33

Who'd have guessed there to be such a thing.

rae

1. can't give you the names, but i know you like your research so i'm sure you'll find them if you don't believe me, Edmonton and NY, NY. As i understand it, its nothing to do with the government, its a voluntary database checked against driving records and membership so the club knows who is allowed in and who isn't, as well as the security aspect of course. as information is given freely there does not appear to be an issue with data collection or storage, i imagine members would sign some kind of waiver.
2. see above, if people grant access, i wouldn't have thought it an issue.

rae

i noticed you've not asked him to name them, i'll help before you do, the white lounge on deansgate, would you like the postcode?

rae

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you are not being sarcastic and i'm not being overly defensive.
i cannot quote conviction rates from years ago, so, and i know this will be an abhorrent idea for some on here, you will, wait for it.... have to believe me, i didn't lose many, if any at court.
there is no reason for me to exaggerate or lie, the simple fact is that many of these incidents are straight forward and do not necessitate forensic evidence. when we do catch a thief, its usually red handed.

kt0157

That's proper policing. But DNA evidence is treated differently. We're starting to see is an overreliance on DNA, with people (police, courts, juries) equating DNA evidence to proof. I'm sure you're familiar with the Raymond Easton case where a totally innocent man was mistreated by your colleagues and then charged solely on a DNA match? That scandal led to a change in the sampling to keep more than 6 loci.

K.