England Starts Fingerprinting Drinkers 552
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."
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Pot. Kettle. #000000
Skirting the system? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how are they going to prevent people from drinking themselves into a stupor at a friend's home then getting in the car? In the end, this could be a pretty significant blow for the bars and restaurants, kind of like the smoking ban in some U.S. cities.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
punish everyone & you're sure to punish the gu (Score:5, Insightful)
No doubt it has psychologican effects on everyone. You know, that creepy feeling you get when you're being watched.
Re:Is responsibility too much to ask for? (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't even let people off in extreme cases such as the one you cited. =p
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? A guy from their country wrote 1984 over 50 years ago. They have cameras on nearly every street corner. If anything I think they are qualified to "make references to Big Brother".
Re:Skirting the system? (Score:1, Insightful)
And more annoyance to the general, legal, law abiding citizen.
I have a very cynical viewpoint when laws that screens for a LEGAL activity to occur; "you must be positively identified first before you may partake in the spirit."
Not only that, the government effective blackmails businesses of this legal activity, shutting them down as the cause if policing doesn't go as planned. Hell, the very nature of a few bars complying with the law would mean higher patronage and problems at the bars that don't, not to mention skew the enforcement of those bars that don't comply...and opens up all sorts of potential for abuse by targetting those bars for overzealous enforcement (paying off the cops to target certain bars to reduce competition). If the UK has something similar to "public intoxication" laws as many US states do, they could walk into the bar (considered a public space by some of these state laws, see Texas) and find buzzed patrons and start ticketed them.
But the cynic in me says that fingerprinting is going to be used for other things, like databased, used to point to "unsolved" crimes, support bills of attainer, etc.
Also, I wonder how much this is really due to reducing actual crime, versus shifting it. Smacks also as an act of prohibition; if I don't want to be fingerprinted, I can't have a drink at my favorite pub or sports bar and the like.
Not to mention, a political ploy. A reduction in business revenue, leading to reduction in tax revenue. A reduction in fines from these "crimes." Then when the budgets get reduced, cries for more funding for police.
Less stuff for the police to do; police do not usually move on to more important crimes, but instead they make a lateral move to focus on other so-called crimes (like jaywalking, minor speeding, etc.). Has the 40%+ reduction also gone hand in hand with an increase in, say, traffic tickets? Gotta make up that revenue....
This reminds me a little of a Pennsylvania law that was proposed (I thought it had passed, but maybe it was repealed). Aside from beer distributors, in PA, you have to buy out of state made alcohol from the Wines & Spirit chain, which is regulated heavily by the state. There was a proposal that in order to buy, you had to run a state ID (driver's license) through and it would check a central system to see if it was valid. This was said to assure you were 21 and all that.
However, there was a small outcry that what the state really was doing was finding times to target enforcement, like harassing buyers who bought hard liquor on a Friday night, or storing the info to be used against people. I'm not sure what happened to this bill/law, but I recently bought some stuff and while carded, I didn't have to run my card through a reader (I don't drink really (i.e. 4-5 drinks total in the past 7 years); went in because I wanted to try some mead and sake).
Lovely world we live in.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
As TFA states, domestic violence had risen during their trial period. Keeping violence behind closed doors is helping no one.
Re:Skirting the system? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Abuse slowly unfolds, it does not spring into existance overnight. Almost everything that is seriously broken in America started off as an innocent (often temporary) stopgap measure to correct some issue of the day but then slowly grew, was hijacked by various interests and warped into an aberration.
I am personally against any tracking of human beings at all and I could give a god damned about the whinning of law enforcement. The simple fact is that once such data is available to law enforcement, it is also available to criminals and interests that are not working for my benefit and since I am a law abiding citizen, there is absolutely no upside for me - only increased scrutiny and loss of privacy. Only the stupidest of criminals will expose themselves through these channels anyway. The smart criminals belong to syndicates that fscking include law enforcement (and therefore have access to this *data* for nefarious purposes).
Reject tracking, profiling and surveillance in all it's guises. Demand court issued warrants for private data. Retain your rights and your personal security.
Re:Law (Score:1, Insightful)
You, my friend, are are rare breed of sane human beings. I'm not nearly as eloquent as you, so I'll leave the talking to you.
48% reduction in alcohol-related crime. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a problem with that? What else are they supposed to do?
I don't mean this as a troll.
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
Now he just has to wear a pair of gloves when he shoots his ex-girlfriend, and construct an alibi for himself but probably does it late at night when you are probably home alone sleeping and thus have no alibi. He leaves the gun at the scene of the crime so the police will have some evidence to find.
The police show up at your door because your prints are the only ones on the gun, and you have no alibi. Now perhaps you have no motive either, but even if the police question the real killer, his prints aren't on the weapon, there's nothing to connect him to it (he'd buy it from a crack dealer or similar, not from a proper dealer that would leave a paper trail pointing to him) Even if they do suspect him of motive, he's got his alibi, which is better than your story of "I was home alone sleeping, and I have no idea how my prints got on that gun...it must be some mistake!"
You will get prosecuted, and even if you aren't convicted, it will ruin your life pretty well. And if you happen to be black, muslim or anyone else who may be unpopular with a jury of twelve people in the area who aren't smart enough to find a way to get out of jury duty, you are completely screwed.
If your fingerprints aren't on some big database they can just check, the same thing could still happen of course, but it would be an unknown set of prints on the weapon, and at least you wouldn't be undeservedly dragged into it.
THAT'S why you should care, even if you think you have/will do nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide. Maybe this example is a bit extreme, and the odds of it happening to YOU are pretty slim, but I'd submit that the odds it will happen to SOMEONE eventually are probably pretty much 100%. Its what I'd do if I wanted to kill someone, and if I managed to get the right acquaintance to take the fall for it, I could have the extra pleasure of screwing over some guy that really pisses me off.
Re:Now the question is - incomplete (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
"Secondly, in the eyes of most people in civilized democracies, US politics has mostly been dominated by rabid right-wing capitalists, dictated by powerful companies, since at least the 1960s."
Thanks for the generalization. Most civilized Europeans are snobs disconnected from the rest of the World.
Ha, that one doesn't really work, especially as I'm in the US. Anyway, you get my point...
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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."
Commonly known as a "happy drunk", they are an entirely different breed to the violent alcoholic. Here in Oz and I think also in UK, the law states you can't serve someone who is already "intoxicated", they don't have to be "out of control" just obviously pissed.
Someone who is totally pissed is not much trouble in the violence dept, it's the ones that are loud, aggressive and still standing that cause problems, they are certainly cognicent enough to remember they gave their prints and will think about their next drink!
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Believe me, I'm a brit, and I'm horrified by this. I just moved next door to Yeovil, and there's no WAY I'm going for a drink and/or meal there if it means I have to be fingerprinted first. The idea is offensive. This private company holding my fingerprints and personal details, who knows who has access to that data. No. Way. I fully intend to let my next-door council know this, that they've lost my custom in all possible ways. By snail mail.
What happens when it goes national? I'll stop going to the pub for a quiet drink, which will also probably mean giving up half my friends. A good chat over a pint is a British institution, but I'm going to have to give up my fingerprints and ID to do it? Goodbye to the pub then. No doubt it's lowered drink-related crime, they've all moved to pubs in the rest of the area - or worse, drink at home and beat up their families. They did say domestic violence had risen, so they've displaced rowdy drinkers who could be arrested and stopped in public, to domestic violence at home, where there's no witnesses and no cops on speed-dial. That's so much better.
Some of the national press [guardian.co.uk] reported on this when it was a dinky little scheme in a provincial town far away from anywhere. I wonder what the Daily Mail and The Sun will make of this now it's going national? Getting fingerprinted to have a pint? This will hopefully be as popular as road tax and ID cards, i.e. vehemently opposed by many.
Re:The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
It certainly dosn't help matters that the US lacks the most basic of data protection laws.
Re:Skirting the system? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you been out in a British town on a Saturday night? Several hundred thousand people in an area the size of downtown San Diego? A significant percentage of whom are from out of town? A significant percentage of whom are fully intending to get drunk/high/laid? A small percentage of whom are intending to get violent? A small percentage of whom aren't intending to get violent but sure aren't going to stand around watching when it does kick off? Sorry, your doorman know all those people?
As for learning to defend yourself, please. You defend yourself against a heavily drunk idiot and his 18 mates. Enjoy the hospital stay, because a lot will happen in the 2 minutes before a dozen burly doormen come and save you.
Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
That depends. If violence in public places has fallen a lot and domestic violence has risen a little than the sum total of violence has fallen. That would be a good thing.
Or look at it another way, is an increase in chance of random violence in a pub a price worth paying for a reduction in domestic violence? Probably not.
Both violence in public places and domestic violence need tackling. That a reduction in one might lead to an increase in the other is no reason for not tackling them both. But this news item only refers to a pilot tackling one. I would hope that there are other initiatives to tackle domestic violence.
Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
consuming the drug and then driving is knowledgeably risking others and is therefore a violent offense.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were the US air carriers, I'd sue the local government for turning the population into cretins through fearmongering tactics and hurting business.
Re:The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the idea is for everyone to give up some freedom because the tabloids are whipping up a frenzy about the UK's "out of control culture binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled violent crime". The WTC has nothing to do with this (for a change).
Maybe alcohol causes enough trouble that oversight is overall a benefit to society.
Ditto cars, knives, guns, sharp sticks, bad words, unkind thoughts, forgetting birthdays and anniversaries, etc.
Alcohol is not the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly the problem is cultural. It seems to me that a reasonable approach might be to try to change the culture to be a bit more like places where you don't have to be scared of looking people in the eye lest it start a fight, or where the police don't show up in riot vans every weekend to control the carnage.
But, like almost everyone, the Brits love their culture, and are loathe to change even the ugly bits. So, instead they get cameras and fingerprint readers. It might work, but I'm still going be very, very careful in pubs there...
V for Vendetta...it's happening. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Brit who has been living in the USA for the past 13 years and it's hard to say which is more like the movie. Britain with more spycams per person than anywhere else on earth - and soon you can't even have a beer without being fingerprinted! Or perhaps it is the USA in which the faceless secret police can monitor what books you check out from the library, bug your phone without judicial oversight and swoop down on you, 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?
Hmmm - hard call. Between the two countries - it's difficult to say which comes closest to the nightmare that V opposes in the movie. As he says: If you want to know whose fault this is - just look in the mirror.
Our own fear of statistically insignificant terrorist violence (or avian flu or WMD or drunk drivers or...you name it) induces progressively higher tolerance for the State to ratchet down the human rights of the entire population. There will come a point when we realise that this has been a terrible mistake - but will we do that before or after the point where we can no longer reverse it's effects?
Better get that bulk order for Guy Fawkes masks in before the rush. Amazon have them for $5.99.
Statistics!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Note that one of those two major incidents wasn't even anything to do with pubs - some kids were at an under-18's disco and obtained alcohol "somewhere else" - it shouldn't even have been counted).
I have two observations:
Firstly: I would submit that whether there were two or four major incidents over a period of eight months is not a statistically valid sample. Especially because the preceeding 8 months would have included Xmas and New Year - both notable occasions for serious drunkenness. No competent statistician or conductor of scientific tests would sign up to these conclusions from such a ridiculously small sample - so we should either conclude that they are invalid - or that they were actually counting something else...which leads me to:
Secondly: For a number like '48%' to have come about, we cannot be measuring a reduction from four to two major crimes - that would be a 50% reduction. This MUST have been taken over a vastly larger sample of incidents. We must conclude then that they are not talking about 'major' incidents such as the two described (a sexual attack in the toilets and a fight between two kids that erupted into a major street brawl). So what this fingerprinting exercise is all about is reducing MINOR incidents.
So let's call this what it is. It's not about cutting down on serious offences - it's about reducing MINOR offences by banning people from pubs who happen to have lost their tempers or done any of the usual things that drunk people tend to do.
Is that worth the loss of privacy that this entails?
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
The Constitution means jack. People interpret it as they want. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
'...in Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), where the U.S. Supreme court held that a black "whose ancestors were ... sold as slaves" was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court, and that blacks were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the U.S. Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the United States Constitution."'
It makes me laugh when my American friends tell me how great their Constitution is whereas I am not a citizen of the UK but a subject of Her Majesty. It's no coincidence that these same Americans are all white. The Constitution did not help black people for many years.
In more recent events, habeas corpus (a human right that dates back hundreds of years in England) appears to be routinely suspended in the US despite it being part of the Constitution (see the Jose Padilla case [wikipedia.org]).
The UK has been free from slavery and apartheid for centuries and, to be honest, I think the average Brit is far more willing to debate any potential infringement on his rights than the average American.
And we don't have a formal constitution.
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
We have all kinds of tough new drunk driving enforcement over here, too. Though thankfully short of fingerprinting people going into clubs. The net effect is people who are problem drinkers drink anyway and responsible people, many of whom don't like the police gettin' up in their business, stay home. Instead we'll have private parties, where our guests can stay the night. Just like I'm guessing a lot of people will skip their pint at the pub because being fingerprinted seems sort of creepy.
You might think that's a responsible solution and you'd be right. The downside is for people trying to run a business. The more enforcement, the more responsible people stay home. It's getting to the point we don't go out on weekends at all. Who wants to run the road block gauntlet just to go out to eat and dancing for a couple hours?
More enforcement is always easy from a political point of view. It's a feel good thing to do that doesn't really work, but since when do results matter in political solutions? I'm not sure there are any easy answers. But I can say for sure, the tougher you get on enforcement, the more your business and entertainment district is going to suffer.
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
You're up against prosecutors who rely on things like the public's belief that DNA tests are 100% accurate and that only one person could possibly have "that DNA" when "that DNA" used to be actually just a match against the presence or absense of 16 or so genes... with only 65536 possible combinations (at 16 markers). While new tests can exactly match one DNA sample to another, DNA "fingerprints" as espoused by the government continue to focus only on a limited number of "markers" meaning that dozens, possibly hundreds of people in a large city will share the same "fingerprint".
You're up against district attourneys who think DNA testing is awesome, unless it's used to prove one of their convicts innocent [truthinjustice.org]. Clearly if two people raped the woman, and two people's DNA was retrieved, and the convicted person turned out to be neither of them, the woman must have forgotten the third rapist, rather than picked out the wrong person on a lineup.
As the other person said, "good luck with your absolute belief in the state", and may God help us all.
Re:Your missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Pubs scan your fingerprint when you enter. This is obstensibly to be used in investigations if there is serious trouble in the area. If this were the end of the story, then perhaps it wouldn't be too big of a deal, other than you being called in the middle of the night every time you were in a pub the same night that some ruccus breaks out.
Time passes. Powerful interests, such as Insurance companies, put pressure on the government to allow them to use the pub data for actuarial purposes (obstensibly to protect the public). The government concedes... Other interests also gain access...
Time passes.
You break up with your girlfriend and spend an unusual amount of time at the pubs for a couple of months. You receive letters informing you that your automobile insurance and health insurance premiums are rising as a direct result of increased risk exposure related to your bar habbit. Your employer calls you in for review and denies your promotion on the basis of risk exposure related to your pub habbits.
Are you getting the picture yet? If not, i give up.
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
What else are they supposed to do?
How about checking for motive, means & opportunity?
Would you like it if the police came after you based on a partial print match, instead of doing his/her job & 'detecting'. Having databases like this encourages merely the appearance of proper police work & procedure. First they'll run any and all fingerprints, then if nothing useful shows up, they'll go about detecting & investigating.
It's a shame that they're going after pub patrons. The Brits might as well start fingerprinting everyone at birth and get it over with, because that's the direction they're heading in.
I suspect this will have a much greater effect on crime than England's current "if you get arrested for anything, we fingerprint & DNA sample you" policy, but I can't say I like it.
Re:Skirting the system? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, get it right! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wow -- I'll Bite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Statistics!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly: For a number like '48%' to have come about, we cannot be measuring a reduction from four to two major crimes - that would be a 50% reduction. This MUST have been taken over a vastly larger sample of incidents. We must conclude then that they are not talking about 'major' incidents such as the two described (a sexual attack in the toilets and a fight between two kids that erupted into a major street brawl). So what this fingerprinting exercise is all about is reducing MINOR incidents.
So let's call this what it is. It's not about cutting down on serious offences - it's about reducing MINOR offences by banning people from pubs who happen to have lost their tempers or done any of the usual things that drunk people tend to do.
One flaw in your logic. According to TFA, "minor" incidents are those involving fewer than 15 police officers responding. We're talking about a hell of a lot more than losing your temper.
Where does it end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how will this affect non-citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
Its just gut wrenchingly wrong. And why is this nessessary? It clearly isn't. Like I say, its the last time I'll be spending my well earned cash in the States (the only thing the US Govt seems to care about). You may think this is not the end of the world. But I have inlaws there who I'd actually like to see more often than I do. Soon they will be too old to travel. That will be the last time I will see them.
I've been to Africa, Asia, all over Europe, and North America was BY FAR the most over policed, and security mad. And as mentioned above in another thread, there is no benifit to show for this. The crime rates there are terrible. It's only place I've had a gun pulled on me (by a policeman!), and the only place to which I will never return. Again I ask, why should I have to declare my political leaning before entering a coutry? Spreading democracy around the opressed world could start a lot closer to home than you think. Why should my child's retina be scanned and recorded, for God knows how long, and to be passed to God knows who? 5! Passport not good enough? The kind of experiment in the OP is to find out if there is benefit to the lesser, voluntry intrusion described. Was there such a trial to see if scanning my kids eyes is of any benifit?
Frankly I don't care if you think they are regarding her as Osama mini Laden, they are treating her as though she may be. I'm gobsmacked that anyone could try to defend this.
Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
All you have to do is create a gigantic sprawling prison industry. Just look at how well it's working on this side of the atlantic.
Before you know it, you too can have a rapidly, perpetually growing prison industry! There's practically no downside!
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that violent crimes should be punished severely, deterrence is unlikely to work, because deterrence assumes that the attacker considers the consequences of his actions. More often than not, this is just not the case, especially under influence.
Re:Your missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, fuck off. What if you took the subway? A taxi? Had a designated driver? Had two drinks and then spent three hours playing pool, after which the alcohol would be completely digested? Not to mention that fact that when I legally go to the bar and legally have a drink it is None Of Their Fucking Business. When you happily hand your rights over while grabbing your anckles for state inspections, you are helping them do the same to the rest of us as well.
Re:Interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. You completely fail at grasping even the basics of the scientific method.
Your train-wreck of a thought process could only be used as reasoning for anything if a statistically significant number of areas were selected, and half of them (randomly selected) were subjected to a gun ban. That would be the starting point.
Your statistic is more than meaningless. High-crime areas are probably much more likely to take on gun bans than low-crime areas.
Thanks for playing. Please return to your 6th grade science class.
Re:V for Vendetta...it's happening. (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe your numbers are a bit off, try 2,800 US soldiers dead PLUS 300,000 to 600,000+ others (mostly civilians) . Oh and BTW you also failed to mention the 30,000 or so US soldiers maimed, who knows how many others maimed as well.
"What level of mass death is statistically significant to merit a response?"
The answer to your question is ONE. The real questions should have been; what level of response is logical and ethical, and how do we implement the response in a effective and judicial manner. Listen close now, 99%+ of the 300,000 to 600,000 more or less that have died in Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 3,000 that died on 9/11.
"100,000 dead in a nuclear attack? That's only 2.5 years of car accidents in the US"
Do you really believe that the mess in Iraq has rendered such an event less likely? How would you feel if your child, lover, sibling, parent or close friend was blown in half before your eyes? Then you get to see the persons responsible smiling and strutting around using such actions to make political hay, now how would you feel? How many more thousands of persons with a vengeful hatred for the US are there today just because of this war?
"Oh well, just another statistic, right?"
Think about it....
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew