In Alberta, a law has been proposed that places going to a bar on a different level of activity from other common activity as it will allow bar owners to collect, store and trade personal information about the folk who pop by for a beer. It is aimed at gang members but fails to notice that most people in taverns are not criminals:
...privacy advocates say the bill will likely do little to combat gang violence in bars. Frank Work, Alberta's privacy commissioner, said the legislation is more likely to create an ever-expanding list of "jerks and idiots" who are blacklisted from Alberta bars for poor decisions while intoxicated. Those who get a little too drunk and rowdy, vomit on the table or forget to pay their tab could find themselves blacklisted from multiple bars, with no way to clear their names. "Maybe he is on the list because he is a super bad guy, or maybe he's on the list because he becomes a wiener after having a couple of drinks," Mr. Work said.
So, if your name gets on this list and gets passed around that tight and principled circle of wizards called bar owners, how long before that list gets used for other purposes by people risk managing their decision making like insurers or maybe organizations which take on volunteers? And, if this is a system aimed at crime detection, it is subject to the same procedural rights other forms of investigation have to respect? Do they even have keep records proving or just explaining why you are on the list? And do the folks at the Dew Drop Inn on the south side of Main Street use the same standards for blacklisting that the Crazy Horse across the way does?
Wouldn't it make sense to also take names at, you know, bike repair shops if you are looking at the biker gangs? They likely buy coffee or have family who attend church so name taking at Tims or at the pew would be handy, too.
Comments
Chris Taylor - May 7, 2009 8:44 AM
Bad for privacy, but tremendously entertaining.
One more reason why you should avoid hitting on the waitress-of-the-week.
seanie - May 7, 2009 1:40 PM
Meh. Its like the gun registry. Why worry about sharing information if you aren't doing anything wrong.
It does however remind me of the "Interdiction" act of alberta from years gone by, which was referred to by locals as the "indian act". For those unaware or not old enough, essentially, a bar was required to keep a list of names of native people posted behind the bar and not serve anyone on the list.
Seanie - May 7, 2009 1:47 PM
Also see: "Inebriates' Guardianship Act" and:
//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3683/is_200801/ai_n25138465/pg_4/
Jay Currie - May 7, 2009 4:35 PM
I like the formal use of the word "weiner" to describe potential targets.
Alan - May 7, 2009 5:25 PM
Nice belittling of a proposed law.
Matthew Fletcher - May 7, 2009 11:16 PM
Hey Seanie,
Can you post the following for me:
Full name
Birthdate
Immediate Family members names
Home address
You aren't doing anything wrong, so you shouldn't mind sharing.
Thanks.
Chris Taylor - May 8, 2009 12:14 AM
I am all for gun registration of handguns (since 1934) and automatics (since 1951). These are the sorts of things that get used in the commission of crimes. Generally long guns, like the single-shot bolt-action .22 I used for comp target a decade ago, do not get used in the commission of crimes. Yet they must also be registered as if they were just as dangerous. You could not get more than one or two shots off before somebody else tackled you and ended your reign of hand-loaded bolt-action .22 calibre terror. You'd get farther with a knife.
Anyway, on to the real matter, the tavern blacklist. Yes it is unquestionably bad. I know this. It will also be useless, because a gang will make it worth the bar owner's while (via bribery or violence) to fail to report any unruly behaviour. So this blacklist idea should go down the toilet as soon as possible.
On the other hand, it is just rife with comedic possibilities. Who doesn't want to see the very first meeting of the Immovable Bar Blacklist (as enforced by Proprietor or Staff) and the Unstoppable (non-Biker) Drunken B**tard. That is pure gold, and you know it.
seanie - May 8, 2009 11:41 AM
Hey Matthew. I'd gladly give you the info if you were a legislated body who required it for legal means, heck I'd even tell you how many Swiss Army knives I own as I don't own any firearms any longer.
seanie - May 8, 2009 11:46 AM
And for the record, even though I am a Lib, I have revised my support of the registry. I think the documentation required for purchase of long guns should suffice for registry of such, so long as it is a properly databased. I do however still support a full handgun registry and as we have a ban on the regular person on the street from owning anything else in a functioning state (i.e. automatic weapons), that should do the job.
Everyone just has to understand though that if the police have someone holed up in a house with hostages as part of a domestic dispute gone crazy and they have the slightest inkling that there may be weapons in the building, they will have to assume the worst and go in ready to take someone down if need be.
Matthew Fletcher - May 8, 2009 5:02 PM
Seanie,
Yeah, I figured that would be your response, but, as you say, "meh."
First,
The "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument is the most horrible argument possible, because if we accept its validity then it can be used to erase any right to privacy. Let the government put a camera in your home, you aren't doing anything wrong, they just want to be sure.
Secondy,
The information is not being collected in this case by the government. The government is authorizing private businesses and individuals to collect said information.
I've seen how the government stores personal and protected information and it often doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. There's no way I'd trust Moe's Pub to keep that information.
Alan - May 8, 2009 6:28 PM
Gold Star!!!
"...the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument is the most horrible argument possible..."
Amber - May 8, 2009 6:48 PM
I wonder if they'll start blacklisting people from starbucks also.
seanie - May 10, 2009 1:11 AM
I'm sorry everyone, but I just don't see how ""if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is all that bad of a way of living ones live, though perhaps a tad naive. We don't live in China. We don't have to show our "papers" when walking the streets at night after dusk. We live in a country where you can pretty much do what you want, so long as you live by the basic fundamentals of "you can do what you want so long as what you do doesn't negatively affect others". the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one (h/t to Spock). This isn't the US west of 1868 people.
Matthew Fletcher - May 10, 2009 12:41 PM
seanie,
This is the most convoluted counter-argument possible, I'm not sure it can logically be rebutted, but here goes:
The argument "nothing wrong; nothing to fear" is essentially an illiberal argument: it invalidates any individual right to privacy one might have. It is based on the assumption that the only value of an individual's privacy is to hide some kind of wrongdoing being perpetrated against society. It assumes the individual can't be trusted.
Then in the next bit, you say "We don't live in China." (Indeed). "You can do what you want so long as what you do doesn't negatively affect others." This is fundamentally a liberal argument that completely contradicts your first argument.
We don't have to show "papers" because we live in a liberal democracy; we don't have to show papers or submit to constant surveillance because the government (which is really the people) operates from the assumption that individual's are not continually trying to violate the rights of others. This is the only way liberalism can work. I allow you your freedom because I trust that you are not out to hurt me. It is the basis of the social contract.
The "Nothing wrong; Nothing to fear" argument is the first step in the breakdown of that trust. When the government (the people) begin operating from the default position that each is out to harm every other, then guilt is fundamentally presumed before innocence. We start demanding to see "papers" just for being on the street, and we start collecting names of people whenever they leave their homes - "just in case" they do something wrong.
The reason we don't live in China is because, over centuries, we have come to reject the assumptions on which China "governs" its people. The "nothing wrong; nothing to fear" argument reverses those assumptions - it embraces the authoritarian principles of the Chinese dictatorship.