Somewhere in Perth’s central business district is a building containing the names, ages, addresses, photographs and unique fingerprint codes of thousands of revellers who danced and drank at Sydney’s Home nightclub last year.
Home, in Darling Harbour, began trialling a biometric ID scanning entry system nine months ago. Patrons lined up before six large terminals to have their photo taken, and their driver’s licence and right index fingerprint scanned. The information was copied and sent to Western Australia, where it is stored on a secured central database by the system developers.
Among them is Hotel Cremorne on the lower north shore. Since November the nightclub has required guests to submit to a photograph and ID scan as they line up on the street to enter on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.
”It did kind of creep me out, made me feel like a criminal,” a regular attendee, Julia Robertson, said. ”[But] I think it does make me feel safe. If some creepy guy comes in, they’ve taken their photograph.”
Queensland’s ID-Tect installed its first ID scanning system in NSW in 2006, but now has hundreds in drinking establishments across the country – and thousands of individuals on its centrally stored ”ban list” accessible to any client.
You feel SAFE knowing that a private company associated with nightclubs has your personal details including biometric data? What’s wrong with these people?
“If some creepy guy comes in, they’ve taken their photograph.”
And if some creepy guy is working security, now he knows where you live.
Its a voluntary program so whats the beef?
Sydney has a lot of rough bars. A weekly ritual by seemingly civilized people is to have a drink, pick a fight, and spend the night in either a police cell or a hospital.
Yeah man … what’s all the fuss about. I’ve got nothin’ to hide LOL 😉
I think its interesting how they describe the fingerprint as ‘being converted to a number’, as if they haven’t actually recorded your print. Of course, you feed a fingerprint into the system it CAN ID you so they effectively HAVE recorded a print.
#2 Bobbo – Voluntary how? Apart from deciding not to enter the premises.
Isn’t technology wonderful?
Honey==”#2 Bobbo – Voluntary how? Apart from deciding not to enter the premises.” //// Yes, thats it exactly. What other concept do you think “voluntary” means? Going to nightclubs is a free market activity, no harm occurs to you if you choose to stay home, the government is not involved.
Ummm. Do you think voluntary means everyone else has to act the way you want them to? A “one way, my way, or the highway” sort of deal with you driving the locomotive?????
Freedom==other people doing what you don’t like. Like requiring fingerprints to go into their business.
So self centered we are.
#7 Bobbo
You could have meant voluntary as in you can choose to submit to the the data collection or not upon entry, which of course wouldn’t have worked.
I cant wait till freedom has progressed to the next level, when providing such data will be required when entering any establishment where people gather. I personally plan to require biometric data from anyone who visits me at home, so I can track them down when my silver spoons go missing.
Then don’t go to the friggin’ bar if you don’t like it. This is not a government doing this, it is a private organization. Hell, every time you use an ATM machine you are getting photographed. I’m sure women feel safer going here…leading to more women going…leading to more men going
#8–Honey==what is it you don’t understand?? Voluntary==as stated yes you are exactly right. You go to the club and you freely choose whether or not to give biometric data, or a cover charge, or wear a toga, or something green or whatever else is LEGAL to require on the owners whim. Just like you do, as you say, to people you invite to your house. “Sorry, you have to take your shoes off and you can’t smoke.” Are your friends now somehow not voluntarily coming to your house because of your LEGAL rules?
I’ll bet you confuse anonymity with privacy on other postings just as you are confusing freedom/voluntariness with your own preferences.
There is a wider world than your own values.
#10 Bobbo
Your such a drama queen!
My beef, as you put it, is that people seem think that providing such data makes them safer. I don’t think it does. In fact, I’m sure it doesn’t. It makes them more vulnerable. Why do I care? That’s a good question.
I can also see this technology expanded to the point where it is required upon entry to any private establishment, perhaps required by the insurance industry in order to get cover. Who knows where this kind of ‘corporate profiling’ it will take us?
Time to fight fire with fire: use fake fingerprints. Just google it, it is quite doable. Sure it’s a lot of effort to put on a fake fingerprint or two before going drinking but who doesn’t want to have the fingerprints of Elvis?
Sounds like Barlink/Barwatch got re-branded
PSST….hey guys, you were asleep at the wheel. -this has been going for years in Canada…
i first tread about at one of fav old phreaking sites, Hack Canada (viva la red box!)
“BarLink!
BarWatch rebranded!
Same shit!
Same pile!
Same company!
(oops, don’t forget “SecureClub” too!)”
(2005)
For those that think hack/phreak sites are an illusion gone bad and offer no “real news or information” how ’bout a slightly more legit outfit: -from 2008:
“Bar system may violate privacy act“
You know what the common denominator in all these stories is? The Queen. (ie england/u.k) You know, the same oppressive bloaks that tried to screw the colonies, and then some..? you can bet that since the white house is all chummy in a very weird way w/queenie, this will be here sooner than you can say:
“kneel and kiss my ring”
-s
—-
Biscuits anyone?
[oh just in case..all the above is satire, -of course.)
#11–Honeyman==drama queen? What do you pull that out of? I can “make up” two different scenarios but neither of them valid. That characterization of my postings does not seem fairly raised.
Perhaps once again you don’t actually mean what you post and “drama” really means “logical?”
You don’t mean what you post as demonstrated by saying your issue is about alleged “vulnerabilities” exposed by biometric sampling but all you wrote about was its (in)voluntariness. Yes, both concepts start with the letter “V”==but they are not the same thing at all. So, lets review the “D’s”—what could you actually be thinking of?? Not drama but “detailed and defintional?” Is that what you are actually thinking of?
BTW–You say the process may not protect the participants which I suppose is purely definitional. If this system caught 4-5 people per year AFTER crimes were committed who would not have been caught otherwise would that be “non-protection” in your mind??? And if not, would that mean you actually think documenting the environment can never protect anyone because of — because of— what?
And the vulnerability you are concerned about is also totally mysterious. It might be used by insurance companies to do exactly what again? Know who they have a policy on? Is that the problem==or have you failed to again correctly state your real meaning that you are concerned it will lead to genetic data collection???
You know Honeyman, you really do need to be a bit more dramatic in your contemplation of these issues.
#14 Bobbo
I questioned what you meant by ‘voluntary’ and immediately you launch into a tirade defensive and sophistic nonsense. I get your argument but I’m uninterested in your opinion of my shortcomings, or what you think I need to do.
I wonder if this “voluntary” nature of going to these bars could now be applied to the laws banning smoking in these said bars. One has the choice not to go to the bar if they allow smoking, thereby not exposing themselves to secondhand smoke. Also one could say that working in these bars is voluntary; no one is holding a gun to the heads of the employees saying they have to work there. Risky behaviour is risky behaviour, one exposes oneself to risk by simply leaving the house, risking the possibility of a debilitating accident that society will have to shoulder the burden of perpetual care for the victim later on. I’m just thinking.
People watch too much TV. They’ve become accustomed to these methods by all the procedural drama’s. But in reality the “good guys” don’t always win. I suppose it’s just too scary to walk around with that thought.
I know it isn’t a fashionable concept any longer
but I always thought that in the global village everyone will know everything about everyone else.
I think we have to get used to it.
In the US, any organization that maintains a database of information on someone has to have methods for incorrect information to be either corrected or purged. These laws are designed to regulate credit reporting agencies. But the way they are written, they actually apply to any list.
For example, your city usually has a landlord association that maintains a database of renters. By law, you have the right the see your file, dispute incorrect information, and have them either correct it, or purge it. In practice, these groups don’t allow you exercise your rights. They get away with it because the public is not aware they have this right, and because most judges don’t know this and they also play golf with the list owners.
If this bar-patron list comes to the US, then they would be subject to the same laws regulating the validity of the information stored in it. What if someone at a bar decides to black list you? What redress do you have? What if they make a mistake?
I suspect that the owners of this list would do everything in their power to prevent the people on the list from seeing, or disputing the information it maintains about them.
Also, in the US, there are no regulations about what they can do with this information. They can sell your information to anyone really. I wonder how much a health insurance company would pay to know about your drinking habits?
Scary, scary, scary.
Why is the truth scary? ((Stick with the truth==not errors in the system, a related but seperate issue.))
Great way to control the sheep…er citizens.
My data suggests that they were doing something similar in China under the First Emperor. You weren’t allowed to live anywhere until after you registered with the local police and they approved.
If they didn’t approve, well that was unfortunate but then China normally had a surplus of people.
You don’t think things are that bad here? You can become a sex offender here pretty bleeping easily and once on that list a map showing where you can actually legally be is going to exclude most urban areas including some entire counties. That list is going to keep on growing along with the no trespass spaces until half the population is on it.
I have wondered what percentage of parents/grandparents can’t legally set get within 1000 feet of a school. While this is a good thing if the person did something that suggests they are a threat to children, kids sextexting are legally child pornographers in many locations along with other life ruining laws and that is kind of a problem.
to quote ben franklin
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Voluntary – to me in regards to a business or public business means i can still enter the building without submitting my personal data to them. as an OPTION.
This is more like a INVOLUNTARY OPTION .. like breathing … you have to breathe , and you have to breathe whatever is in the air around you.
no choice
therefore to FORCE people that want to enter a NON-GOVERMENT building their BIOMETRIC and RECORDED information
((that can/could/will very easily be ABUSED=SOLD or used to set up false crimes i.e with all that data easily duplicable data could be implanted to effectively lie about who was where. … if the glove dont fit defense doesn’t work … ))
since its a business its even more prone to vulnerability as much or more than government services.
US Sens. Schumer and Graham are backing the next generation of drivers licenses to have biometric data so that employers can verify workers with this card instead of one the 26 documents in use now.
The readers will cost over $100.