SecretGarden

I do. When my UK inlaws visited two years ago (that was the same visit that my 64 year old father in law was asked to leave his ID at the desk of the Childrens' Museum in Chicago in case of any "issues") we stopped by a local Walmart so they could buy some gin to have at their hotel. So, we're in line with them, and the cashier asks my father in law for photo ID. He wasn't carrying a photo ID with him (left his passport at our house) and his UK driver's license doesn't have a photo on it, so he explained he had nothing to show her.

She said, "Then I can't sell this to you" and took the bottle of gin off the conveyor belt. He turned to my brother in law (also from the UK but had his passport with him) and said, "can you get it for me?" The cashier said, "no, I know it's for you and you don't have photo ID".

So, I left the line, got a bottle of gin, went to another register at the other end of the store and bought it for them using my driver's license.

It left my UK relatives wondering what the hell they had stepped into, particularly after the Childrens' Museum thing.

Bit off topic, but I believe what was said because I saw it happen to my father in law who was obviously much older than 21.

~SecretGarden

Tracym

Some individual cashier is being bizarre then - it certainly isn't common practice.

Heck, I ADORE it when the card me - I threaten to hug them

meauxna

It's a company policy with one store chain here. The DH ran into the same silliness on his first visit here.
They're the ones with the liability (the vendor) and if they have had problems, a policy like this is fair because it treats everyone equally.


As long as they have a US ID.
(I love getting carded too, but I hate being called "Ma'am" instead of "Miss" now!)

SecretGarden

After this happened I have heard from countless people that Walmart does this pretty consistently, but yes, I did think the "I know it's for you and you don't have ID" thing was utterly ridiculous. By that time we all could have used a drink, pronto, which is why I didn't argue it but took care of it in another way.

Yeah, I like it when I get carded too. I think it's just a "Mercy Carding" but it still makes me feel young.

~SG

RoadWarriorFromLP

It isn't common knowledge. If you review the breadth of studies on the subject, the data presents mixed results and reasonable people can dispute the results.

The prime demographic of drunk driving is 30-40something males, not teenagers. Your most severe drunk drivers -- the ones who have high BAC's and who are actually involved in DWI accidents -- are generally not casual partiers, but hardcore alcoholics, many of whom are often repeat offenders.

Targeting teens may appeal well to puritan instincts, but the value of doing it is debatable unless one's ultimate goal is to institute a creeping form of prohibition.

Lowering BAC's and raising drinking ages may actually be counterproductive, because it causes law enforcement to focus on low-hanging fruit instead of methodically targeted those who are most likely to collide with other vehicles. Since we only have so many cops, we need to be judicious in how we deploy them.

MADD has an obvious agenda, so their assessment of the data is not to be trusted.

Tracym

Whatever. Sorry, this just isn't worth the bother of researching. I believe it is common knowledge.

If you want to dredge up a bunch of studies, that's fine - afraid I'm not concerned enough to take the time.

Almost everyone who does a study has some sort of agenda - I never absolutely trust any study (to the unhappiness of some on the board) - but I suspect some can be found at MADD. That's all I said.

Tracym

Ok, here's something on the debate:

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedi...,4346240.story

"A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others showed that raising the drinking age reduced drunken driving deaths"

So there's one source.

kins

Sorry, I've been out most of the day. Yes I did look at about 100 of the people on there, and I didn't recognise him. But it was a very interesting site...

fatbrit

XIV is more a catch-all than X.

Regardless, there is no mention of privacy within the Constitution. There have, however, been rulings that allude to theis right by USSC (derived from the right to liberty in the preamble), but all the ones I have ever read have to do with preserving an individuals right to privacy from their government, not a fellow citizen. If you know of a ruling otherwise, please cite.

JAJ

A ban on taking photographs anywhere outside your own home - which is really what you are suggesting - would be a serious infringement of liberty and unless community attitudes change a lot, it's just not going to happen.

There are already laws dealing with loitering, harassment and filming people in places where they do have a reasonable expectation that they will not be filmed, and these are quite adequate for purpose.

It is difficult to see how community opinion could be mobilised to ban photography outside the home and in the meantime, those who try to enforce a ban of their own with intimidation and violence (as some on this forum appear to countenance) do risk going to jail.

Tracym

I think you summed that up perfectly.

RoadWarriorFromLP

No, the 14th amendment is commonly referred to as the "equal protection clause." It simply expands the rights of citizens secured at the federal level to the state and local levels.

The 10th says that whatever rights aren't clarified by the feds and the states are held by the people. Essentially, it's a reminder that you have freedoms in a generic sense, and that they need not be specifically defined and outlined in the constitution in order to have those rights.


You are grossly overstating the point. Nobody is proposing that photography be banned, or that people can't be background subjects in photos.

Effectively, it would be putting some teeth behind a practice that is already common courtesy -- you ask for the consent of those whom you would have as the subject of your photographs.

The modern era needs to figure out a way to cope with the onslaught of cheap, readily available cameras and their linkage to digital media and internet distribution.

The OP certainly felt harassed by any reasonable standard, yet the current law provides the OP with no recourse, save if our aspiring molester has already been convicted.

It's a real reach to argue that a perv photographer has a more compelling justification to take unwanted film than does the offended guardian in preventing it. That position doesn't account for how easy it is to abuse that footage in today's world.

fatbrit

Regardless, the Constitution by and large protects your privacy from government....not your fellow citizen.

JAJ

Impossible to draw the line between being a "subject" and a "background subject" without innocent photographers being arrested by the thousands.

So you are arguing for an effective ban on outdoor photography, landscape shots excepted.

RoadWarriorFromLP

That is not correct. Apologies, I have been citing the Ninth Amendment, not the Tenth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's a strawman argument. It is not impossible, particularly in a case such as the OP's in which our cameraman claimed to have had a full half hour of footage of this kid. Most reasonable people would readily see this unsolicited behavior as a form of stalking.