dbd33

I don't believe you. Individuals do not own and control their driving records, they belong to the government. There's no provision for an individual to write to the DMV in their state and say "disclose my information to the machine at this ip address". It's impractical and illegal. The ACLU would be all over it.

It may be that there's a database of membership data at a club somewhere that uses drivers license numbers as a key; I might believe that if you could provide an example.

dbd33

I didn't ask him to name them as I was just poking fun at the oxymoronic conjunction of "upmarket" and "Manchester".

He wasn't, of course, describing the sort of criminal misuse of data you seem to advocate, just saying that some clubs use the physical features of members to identify those members. Biometric data freely given is, to me, just like photographs. DNA, retina scans, fingerprints etc. given and used only in the context of a club is fine, we do that for work already. What's problematic is referencing this identifying data against an external source of information especially one operated by the state.

rae

i think whats important, and the point thats being missed in your typical aggressive demand for verification, is that i'm not strictly advocating the uses of such a system, but, i can certainly see the benefits and agree these outweigh certain rights to privacy. as such, i don't care whether you believe me or not.
the example i gave does not require the individual to write to anywhere. have a minute. the member joins the club, providing a driving license, or, other photo i.d. as proof of identity. then the finger/thumb print in conjunction with the other i.d., this print is then used to access the club. i should imagine this would cut down on people swapping passes and changing photo's, whilst affording the club some protection from underage drinking.
thats all, you don't have to be so forthright, your comments are usually very astute and funny, but i would appreciate it if you didn't assume i was lying through my teeth, i cannot see the point of doing so, whats to gain?

rae

as i was, over you wanting to know the in's and out's of a ducks arse as usual

rae

<sighs> i wasn't, am not, and would never do. please see post above, i simply want to do the best job i can and information like this helps. its not all a mass conspiracy to rip everyone off all the time you know, mind you, being paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

dbd33

I don't see a problem with such use of data voluntarily provided. It's the connection with government controlled data that is of concern to me. Your original assertion was "some licensed premises in America and canada already have fingerprint scanners at point of entry to confirm and register identification and age" which to me implied confirmation against some external data source. If they just scan the fingerprint to establish that the person in front of them is the same person as last night well, fair enough.

I expressed disbelief in response to your "if you don't believe me". That was a bit brusque on my part. Since we don't seem to have much of a disagreement here, if any at all, I guess I should tone it down a bit. Sorry.

rae

readily accepted thank you. however, i think this is just my reasoned take on it, it would not surprise me if in the UK they did try to link it to another government agency database. i'm unsure on my feelings on this, what i am sure of though is it wouldn't work, so nothing really to worry about (recent scrapping of computer systems in NHS, MOD and CSA, costing millions all well documented british press last 6 mths, NHS one most recent).

rae

There are several points here, and i'll 'ave them all. what i would say is this case was a one off, though not excusing it of course or demeaning the impact. there should always be other evidence, but there's the rub, with only this evidence, would you want the police to put the person before the court to make a decision?

AnyaT

There is a big difference between "clubs" and bars/pubs/taverns/etc in Canada. Clubs are private establishments one generally pays to join and voluntarily hands over personal information (they seem to be established most often to get around anti-smoking legislation). I could see driving license records, fingerprints, etc being part of this information though it would strike me as a bit over the top. Bars and pubs are public establishments and I don't believe they have any right to collect personal information - they can ask for ID to prove legal age but if I understand privacy legislation correctly, can't retain that information in any way without that patron's permission. I suppose a pub could ask its patrons to supply fingerprints or whatever else, but can't imagine many people would hand it over willingly. They'd just go to the pub down the road where they wouldn't get hassled.

kt0157

It happened again to Peter Hamkin, who was arrested after Interpol and the Italian police matched his DNA (falsely) to a serious crime in Italy.

K.

kt0157

The system in the UK works differently. It's a network, which bars join. Each person has a unique record in the database, and each bar adds "intelligence" to that record. An example I read is if a person is rude to a barman, they add that to the record, and other bars can refuse access.

Sounds good, but it's a recipe for abuse. How long before bar staff are discovered putting in comments like "puts out easily"? I do hope the Canadian data protection laws squish any similar schemes in Canada. There's a chance this one will be squished similarly in the UK, but the Home Office are not known for their willingness to obey the law, so we might see it extended instead.

K.

rae

mmmm, must have an exceptionally good brief, cynical i know, can't help thinking where there is smoke

dbd33

I don't imagine they would. A collection of rumours and opinions about bar patrons contributed by bar staff might be compared to the information held by credit bureaus. They're obliged to disclose the information held to the person in question but if something is an opinion rather than a fact, "poor moral risk" for example, there's nothing one can do to have it removed. Even if a fact is incorrect it's extremely difficult to get it corrected and I don't imagine most people bother.

kt0157

Oh, he had a cast-iron alibi. That, and the fact that a 6 loci match is provably flawed due to the size of the database, was enough to put a stop to it. But not without some misery for the suspect. As the database grows, the risks of false matches rise and this is going to get worse when the UK database grows from 2 million people to 60 million people.

In any case, the "where there's smoke" attitude means that anyone with a DNA match has to prove their innocence (to you and your colleagues in order to escape the clutches of the CPS and the courts, at any rate). Isn't that the wrong way round?

This approach is an anarchists charter. Gather thrown-away envelopes for letters from well-known people (councillors, MPs, etc.), put the stamps on to death-threat letters (white powder inside, naturally) and post them to political opponents. All that DNA in the saliva on the stamp (it's what caught Wearside Jack, right?). What a laugh when the police turn up to arrest the Rt. Hon. Supporter Of The DNA Database! Where there's smoke, right?

DNA evidence is maybe not enough to convict on its own but it's certainly enough to get charged. Ask Sharon Houston.

K.

windward

Young Master Rooney has to have somewhere local to spend all that hard earned cash.

Public IT initiatives are generally just excuses for private companies (or rather their directors) to pocket millions of taxpayers pounds for delivering sod all anyway. Going on past experience I think we can count on this ineptitude to keep us safe a little while longer.