England Starts Fingerprinting Drinkers

dptalia writes "In an effort to reduce alcohol related violence, England is rolling out mandatory fingerprinting of all pub patrons. If a pub owner refuses to comply with the new system, and fails to show 'considerable' reductions in alcohol-related crimes, they will lose their license. Supposedly the town that piloted this program had a 48% reduction in alcohol-related crime." From the article: "Offenders can be banned from one pub or all of them for a specified time - usually a period of months - by a committee of landlords and police called Pub Watch. Their offenses are recorded against their names in the fingerprint system. Bradburn noted the system had a 'psychological effect' on offenders."

Now the question is

[Anonymous Coward]

how many drunk pub patrons upon being asked for their fingerprints will pull down their pants and shout "Fingerprint this?"

Re:Interesting.

[aegzorz]

Nothing like a little torture in an American prison to sober you up!

Re:Interesting.

[Shanoyu]

Well if they would just loosen up and get completely smashed now and then they might end up with a more spirited perspective on our great nation.

Re:Scary...

[Walt Dismal]

I, for one, welcome our fingerprinting overlords. Burp.

Re:Now the question is

[felix rayman]

Not enough.

Re:Interesting.

[Shanoyu]

Pretty good. It's been working for quite some time really. I don't really know how someone can get to be so smashed and out of control that you don't want to serve them liquor and simultaneously they somehow don't break any other law except perhaps public intoxication. Clearly British drunks have reached a level of uncanny and clever shenanniganism that a finger print system is simply no match for.

But what about artificial limbs?

[zymurgy_cat]

This law has a major loophole. People without hands can visit any pub they like! I'm certain that we'll soon see an increase in alcohol-related violence by people with artificial hands, hooks, stumps, and the like.

Please, please, won't someone think of the children?!?! We need to implement alternative ID methods. Perhaps something like RFID chips implanted in artificial hands. We should also consider banning artificial limbs, hooks, and the like so these people cannot drink excessively and threaten our children. If we save the life of only one child, it will be worth it.

Fond Memories

[lupine_stalker]

Never fear, when you grow up, you can tell your children about all your fond experiences drinking with your Big Brother.

Re:how will this affect non-citizens

[c_forq]

Let them be at my doorstep. I am fine with that. In the court system they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction for a criminal case. If they come to my door step I will be happy to go downtown, tell them what I was doing there, tell them everything I know, and do anything I can to help them solve the crime. If they do end up charging me I am confident that I can raise reasonable doubt.

Make some fake fingerprints to fool the scanners

[Matt Perry]

From the article:

Yeovil is to become the first town in Britain to install "biometric" fingerprint scanners in pubs and clubs that will instantly identify potential troublemakers.

Thinking about how easy these scanners are to fool, someone should create a fingerprint patch and supply a copy to everyone in town. It'll look like one guy goes drinking way too much. It'd be even better if the finger print was of some semi-important or visible offical who's in favor of this legislation. I'm thinking about how the Mythbusters people lifted a fingerprint from a can and used that to create a fake fingerprint to fool a scanner.

Re:Europeans, Canadians are exempt.

[Jedi Alec]

But basically, if you're from a major European country and here on a tourist visa, there's no fingerprinting. (Which makes the whole process pretty fucking stupid -- I mean, so now the terrorists need to get false Dutch papers instead of false Egyptian ones; great use of a few million dollars.

Don't be ridiculous. No sane Dutchman would go to the USA for their own pleasure, what with all the windmills to maintain and pot to smoke. Therefore anyone travelling to the US with a dutch passport is by definition a terrorist, a businessman or both.

Re:Background Information

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also commonly said that the Prime Minister has a lot more power over government than the President.

Which is a good thing, considering the US President is an animatronic monkey in a man-suit.

We're waiting to perfect the system.

[Kadin2048]

Imagine having to have your fingerprints taken just to enter a pub!! WTF

It is a little fascist, I give you that. Here in the U.S., we'd never allow anything so intrusive. Fingerprinting is for foreigners and criminals! We prefer more subtle monitoring. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Here, we'll just mandate that the bars have to check ID by scanning your RFID-enabled, government issued card through a terminal. Your photo pops up on the terminal screen (built by Diebold -- don't ask what's inside!), and they see that you're 21. It's for the children, naturally. Don't want them drinking. Of course, also on file from when you applied for your ID card is your retinal patterns, fingerprints, shoe size, etc. So if they find some suspect fingerprints, it'll be a simple matter to check them against the files for everybody that's been in that pub. Superior to the Brits really, since you don't have to deal with low-grade print scanners at every bar, getting gunked up and unreliable.

From a "citizens" perspective, it's no different than today. Lots of places scan your ID when you buy booze, so most people would never notice. By putting all the changes in the backend, it's far less intrusive. Doesn't make sense to remind people of what's going on -- why not keep things looking the way they "always have?"

Actually taking fingerprints is so 20th century. Honestly ... we've moved past that here.

Re:Answer: slashdot headline, misleading as usual

[Cederic]

If I could make a suggestion that would solve your problem: Leave Coventry.

Seriously, the place is dire.

Re:Interesting.

[KDR_11k]

Wait, I thought you guys had an entire prison CONTINENT?

Re:Applies to only drinkers?

[maxume]

First they take your guns, then they take your beer. Bastards.

Re:Wow

[Snarfangel]

So yes, the English are qualified to make references to Big Brother. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

At least, not if a camera is pointed in their direction.

Re:Wow -- I'll Bite

[darkchubs]

Suggesting that wez folks that lives in the Sounth (East I'm sure you was referrin to) USA is in cahoots with the KKKlan.. well hell thats just as silly as a one legged dog swimmin across the river at high tide on a Sunday. I live in Tallahassee and I reckon I'll take offense for my kin folk... your horse sense is scarce as hen's teeth boy. The KKKlan done moved its HQ out to the Khristian Kountry Klub and they aint let me in on account of some fancy "no shirt no shoes" rule... hell I ain't got neither! Just remember boy , Sun don't shine on the same dog's tail all the time. (FYI open office has "cahoots" AND "reckon" in its spell check database!)

Re:Interesting.

[MightyYar]

Hmmm, maybe an "angry drunk" tattoo on the forehead would be a more economical idea. You could make it ultraviolet so that it only shows up under a black light :)

Re:how will this affect non-citizens

[RyoShin]

But the insane tactics being touted in the States ([...], agents visiting you for joking about killing the Pres on the internet, [...]

I'm not sure how if there's a comparable department in the UK, but the main focus of the US Secret Service is to protect those they've been assigned to, first and foremost the President. Yes, they also have jurisdiction over money counterfiting, seeing as they are a police force under the Secretary of Treasury, but that's a little less common, or at least reported such.

So you're protecting someone, and what do you do? Just form a circle around him or her and hope that no one decides to attack, or are you pro-active and try to sniff out those who would do harm to the President (and other protectees) before it happens? The latter costs more money, but makes it far less likely that someone would take a shot at your protectee, let alone hit them.

So you follow up on leads that someone said they would like to see the President dead, or someone joking on the internet about a way to kill the President, because you will never know if they are actually thinking about doing it or not. Visits from the USSS are generally just a sign of force; they go in, interrogate someone for a few hours, then release them. In doing so, they get across the point that they're watching.

If your sole job was protecting somebody, you can't pass up investigating threats against that somebody, passive, joking, or otherwise.

Of course, with the internet stuff, you have auto-bots that scan all manner of "rebel" sites for keywords. This could cause a visit from the SS when one isn't- hang on, someone's at the froCONNECTION TERMINATED

Re:V for Vendetta...it's happening.

[Mark Hood]

No, no no - I'm sick of people misinterpreting the new laws in the US in this way:

merely accuse you of being a terrorist (no proof required) and on that pretext lock you up, torture you, ship you off to god-knows what hell-hole - and all without any right of trial or appeal?

They have to accuse you, lock you up, ship you off to god-knows what hell-hole, and ONLY THEN can they torture you.

Please stop spreading these malicious slanders, or the terrorists win.

Mark

PS Please check your irony-meter before moderating this post, thank you.

Re:Interesting.

[Teun]

Possibly, but very few sober drivers are killed by drunk pedestrians.