There seems to be no quick and effective deterrent mechanism for misrepresenting the law or abusing the scope of the law. Are there any summary-conviction penalties for bodies (including public sector) that misrepresent the law to the public by the reasons they give when imposing their own ID requirements or rules regarding ID?
I would love for governments and other public entities to hold themselves accountable, but that (almost) never happens. While many upstanding people work in the public sector, leadership roles tend to attract those more interested in power than service.
New subscriber here, I’m really enjoying your content David. Very thorough, but you make it easy to digest these important privacy topics. Thanks, and keep at it!
Unfortunately the scanners have been around for a long time. We were using them in 2000 for entry to some of the bars in wpg. Especially the north end area. Thanks for the video.
I like the idea of just keeping your licence ID number... to the police that is a key to everything, but for identity theft or any other side use by the company, it's worthless. It's minimally invasive.
This should be fairly easy, use a one-way hash function to convert the name, gender, age, and picture into a complex QR. Then, you have the ability to compare against information that is secure. Just make sure the hash is one way, and heavily salted.
Instead of collecting data from law abiding people, armed security or police should be used. I have zero faith in the governments ability to regulate themselves with my data and I would take a hard look at their stats on the reduction of theft. If a true man trap is not used to ensure 1 swipe only allows entry to one person at a time, this is useless. Further, criminals are very adaptive and several will push through this faux security easily. The only way to curb this is to have a person at the door who makes criminals weight whether they want to take on a cop/security for some booze.
companies don't want to do that... as that costs them much more, and having a person means they have to pay regularly, they need to hire, train, schedule, deal with time off, etc.
I understand that completely, but it doesn't change my view. Liquor is highly profitable and they can afford it, especially in ontario where the LCBO rules and handles all sales. It is yet another instance where our gov wants more of our data to solve a problem that is in fact a law enforcement one. In the biz I'm in, I've seen plenty of robberies where 2-4 people enter quickly and say, jump the counter and steal pharmaceuticals, or use fake ID to pass security. What's next, the old consumers distributing retail model, or go back to the way the LCBO was run in the 70's. @@wolphin732
I have a question about discrimination on the basis of issued identification. Is your right to be in public accessible areas doing lawful business dependent on one’s ability to produce govt issued ID? Are we subject to the whole ID because it’s two in the morning in a public place as well? Sorry I have so many questions. I’d love to pick your brain for days
Im pretty much at 35 seconds in. just after require had over id and store it for 14 days. Before I watch this (probably will update after the video) my opinion as a non law person (and before watching video) is they were possibly hoping to get around any privacy stuff due to the section 1 of the charter (can infringe on rights if it can be proven to be justified.) as far as I know, with liqour sales they (those selling liquour) are "suppose to" verify age.
would a finger print scanner , that records the "person" not name entering\ exciting time frame wise , thus only the police would have whom the print would belong too by warrant , and any convicted\ caught persons print would have a restraint order against them and by store or chain of stores ,with out the store even needing the name address ect, they would only see denyed access till x date of for life ect .you print is unique , and can not be used in identity theft as a result but it does identify you as legal age , ? love too hear your take as fingerprint scanner and how they could benefit or hinder people privacy
I love your analyses. One thing: could you sync the picture & voice better? You voice is about a quarter second behind, and it jars. As for the topic, scanners & storage is unjustifiable!
There seems to be no quick and effective deterrent mechanism for misrepresenting the law or abusing the scope of the law. Are there any summary-conviction penalties for bodies (including public sector) that misrepresent the law to the public by the reasons they give when imposing their own ID requirements or rules regarding ID?
I would love for governments and other public entities to hold themselves accountable, but that (almost) never happens. While many upstanding people work in the public sector, leadership roles tend to attract those more interested in power than service.
The last section of the Charter (24) - we snuck it in the end, whereas in the American Constitution it's in the first article.
if it's a private agency, don't give them your money.
Are monopolies illegal? Is the BAR Association a monopoly?
New subscriber here, I’m really enjoying your content David. Very thorough, but you make it easy to digest these important privacy topics. Thanks, and keep at it!
Unfortunately the scanners have been around for a long time. We were using them in 2000 for entry to some of the bars in wpg. Especially the north end area. Thanks for the video.
I like the idea of just keeping your licence ID number... to the police that is a key to everything, but for identity theft or any other side use by the company, it's worthless. It's minimally invasive.
Very interesting discussion!
This should be fairly easy, use a one-way hash function to convert the name, gender, age, and picture into a complex QR. Then, you have the ability to compare against information that is secure. Just make sure the hash is one way, and heavily salted.
Instead of collecting data from law abiding people, armed security or police should be used. I have zero faith in the governments ability to regulate themselves with my data and I would take a hard look at their stats on the reduction of theft. If a true man trap is not used to ensure 1 swipe only allows entry to one person at a time, this is useless. Further, criminals are very adaptive and several will push through this faux security easily. The only way to curb this is to have a person at the door who makes criminals weight whether they want to take on a cop/security for some booze.
companies don't want to do that... as that costs them much more, and having a person means they have to pay regularly, they need to hire, train, schedule, deal with time off, etc.
I understand that completely, but it doesn't change my view. Liquor is highly profitable and they can afford it, especially in ontario where the LCBO rules and handles all sales. It is yet another instance where our gov wants more of our data to solve a problem that is in fact a law enforcement one. In the biz I'm in, I've seen plenty of robberies where 2-4 people enter quickly and say, jump the counter and steal pharmaceuticals, or use fake ID to pass security. What's next, the old consumers distributing retail model, or go back to the way the LCBO was run in the 70's. @@wolphin732
I have a question about discrimination on the basis of issued identification. Is your right to be in public accessible areas doing lawful business dependent on one’s ability to produce govt issued ID? Are we subject to the whole ID because it’s two in the morning in a public place as well? Sorry I have so many questions. I’d love to pick your brain for days
No holding personal data
Im pretty much at 35 seconds in. just after require had over id and store it for 14 days. Before I watch this (probably will update after the video) my opinion as a non law person (and before watching video) is they were possibly hoping to get around any privacy stuff due to the section 1 of the charter (can infringe on rights if it can be proven to be justified.) as far as I know, with liqour sales they (those selling liquour) are "suppose to" verify age.
would a finger print scanner , that records the "person" not name entering\ exciting time frame wise , thus only the police would have whom the print would belong too by warrant , and any convicted\ caught persons print would have a restraint order against them and by store or chain of stores ,with out the store even needing the name address ect, they would only see denyed access till x date of for life ect .you print is unique , and can not be used in identity theft as a result but it does identify you as legal age , ? love too hear your take as fingerprint scanner and how they could benefit or hinder people privacy
I love your analyses. One thing: could you sync the picture & voice better? You voice is about a quarter second behind, and it jars. As for the topic, scanners & storage is unjustifiable!