Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Experience humanity amplified

Another view of night club fingerprinting

By johnboy - 13 November 2008 34

New user Manhole has jumped in on September’s story about fingerprinting of customers in Sultan’s Nightclub. It was an interesting post so I’m reproducing it here:

    How informed do you have to be before your opinion is worth something?

    This is post number 78 and its the first to mention that the fingerprint and ID scan system isn’t owned or controlled by Sultans, its run by NightKey (see nightkey.com.au). Sultans merely hire their sevrices. Go to their website, you’ll feel much safer about going into a club with nightkey than one with just bouncers, and there’s at least two in Canberra now.

    Anyone can tell you that underage drinking and violent alcohol fueled behaviour is a serious problem but a club owner will tell you how serious this is for them: the violence against staff, the damage to premises and reputation and the prospect of fines and suspension/cancelling of your liquor licence (ie close your business) if you are found with underage drinkers or serving intoxicated persons.

    This is a problem they face and its cost of doing business to manage these issues to implement systems such as nightkey.

    A club owner has everyone working against him, the police, the AAT (which has been accused of being a police run court) and the public. If an underage drinker is found on the premises the owner won’t know about it till the court date, which could be months later. The club owner can’t find out who the person was, what they looked like etc they unfortunately turn up at court in the hope to disprove the police’ assertions and ultimately get ambushed. Without evidence the club owner is at the mercy of the police/AAT.

    If (a big if) the police co-operate they can eliminate the licencee from their investigations by accessing the logs of nightkey.

    Underage drinkers know the score, they use fake id or other people’s id to get into a club and if asked to show id by the police they refuse (perhaps thinking they’ll be caught with fake id) but also frustrating the club owner as they now need to prove they checked their ID. The burden is on the licencee to prove they believed the person is 18 or over. A bit of a joke really so clubs are always at the mercy of the police should they want to put pressure on any club.

    As for the sign it is there to comply with the privacy act, its not a contract to sell your details. The sign will tell you the information you need to know about their compliance with the privacy act.

    Comments made by civil libertarians sounded like they got their information from the journalist so the journo had a more juicy sounding story. I don’t think they even knew about nightkey.

    Staff can’t access the patron’s details at all, polic can. The log allows a person to enter based on a fingerprint scan to 300 digit PIN number, so they are vetted and allowed to enter. Read their website, its also where you can access you own details. Why shouldn’t club use this information to help manager their business and the experience for their customers better? Its no different to a staff member remembering you and doing the same, exactly the same checks and balances apply.

    Sultans should be lauded for implementing a system that makes life much easier for legitimate customers and discourages violence, underage drinkers and drug dealers. Sure, it won’t stop the troublemakers and needs to keep the right checks and balances in place; as its way better than doing nothing at all.

    Riot-act is anger therapy for people whose opinions are not respected.

On that last point, Manhole now joins us.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
34 Responses to
Another view of night club fingerprinting
peterh 4:30 pm 13 Nov 08

it is the responsibility of the club owner to check ID. not fingerprint the patrons, their license or other photo ID. using fingerprints is just dumb. if the ID is a fake, the fingerprint system is useless.

what clubs need is some form of access to an ID system so as to confirm the card holder is who they say they are.

AngryHenry 4:30 pm 13 Nov 08

Jim Jones said :

Fair enough Angry (and Tetranitrate) – yes, the ‘attendence is optional’ angle does change things.

I still have a pathological aversion to the ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide …’ argument though.

But it’s entirely possible that this is more of a case of a ‘if you don’t like it, don’t do it’ kind of thing.

I must say that I’m particularly glad that you wear clothing. You’d catch a nasty sunburn at the moment without it.

Not to mention cast a pretty long shadow…

Yeah I definitely could have worded that better man. I’m glad I got there in the end.

Jim Jones 4:27 pm 13 Nov 08

Fair enough Angry (and Tetranitrate) – yes, the ‘attendence is optional’ angle does change things.

I still have a pathological aversion to the ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide …’ argument though.

But it’s entirely possible that this is more of a case of a ‘if you don’t like it, don’t do it’ kind of thing.

I must say that I’m particularly glad that you wear clothing. You’d catch a nasty sunburn at the moment without it.

Tetranitrate 4:24 pm 13 Nov 08

Jim Jones said :

AngryHenry said :

If you’ve got nothing to hide it’s not a problem. If you feel it violates your civil rights don’t go there, I beleive attendance is optional yes?

Sorry Henry, but that’s a bit of a dodgy argument. By the same logic, we should all be implanted with microchips and be tracked by GPS and satellite cameras 24 hours a day, because, you know, ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, then you’ve got nothing to worry about’.

No, thats a complete misrepresentation of the argument.
It’s a private business. You don’t have to go there.
There are plenty of other nightclubs. It’s akin to requiring a dress code or adding some other condition of entry. No one is forcing you to go.

AngryHenry 4:21 pm 13 Nov 08

Jim Jones said :

AngryHenry said :

If you’ve got nothing to hide it’s not a problem. If you feel it violates your civil rights don’t go there, I beleive attendance is optional yes?

Sorry Henry, but that’s a bit of a dodgy argument. By the same logic, we should all be implanted with microchips and be tracked by GPS and satellite cameras 24 hours a day, because, you know, ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, then you’ve got nothing to worry about’.

I gotta admit that I don’t know much about the whole night-club fingerprint escapade, but the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is just dodgy. You do have curtains in your house, don’t you?

Please, call me Angry…

I think that might be a whole different kettle of fish though my friend because we’re then talking about compulsory identification being forced on the entire population as opposed to a little club which is a huge privacy and civil liberty issue.

Maybe i could have said it better like, if you feel you’ve got nothing to hide and you’re not concerned about it then enjoy your night there but if you feel it preys on your civil liberties then go somewhere where they don’t practice it. At the end of the day I guess final numbers will dictate as to wether or not it’s a success.

I have curtains in the house yes and I also (beleive it or not) wear clothes out in public, wether that’s for my sake or the sake of others I’ll leave to your wild imagination. I may have put up a stupid argument in the heat of the moment but I think that counter comment is equally as idiotic.

PreciousLilywhite 4:18 pm 13 Nov 08

I don’t think it’s the data mining that’s of concern. It’s the fingerprint harvesting.
A database that pairs fingerprint information with names is a very powerful tool.
Will you be freely offering it to the police to help solve crimes?

“If (a big if) the police co-operate they can eliminate the licencee from their investigations by accessing the logs of nightkey.”
What are you saying? Have you found police uncooperative in the past?
Why should the police co-operate with you? Will you withhold information if they don’t? Isn’t it to your benefit to co-operate with police?
Do you really plan to count on this as evidence in court eg. We don’t have that person scanned in so they CAN’T have been in the club? If so, will your new system erode the polices’ ability to prosecute you for underage drinking?

So many question for you, Manhole…sorry about that but your comments confused me a bit.

Jim Jones 4:00 pm 13 Nov 08

AngryHenry said :

If you’ve got nothing to hide it’s not a problem. If you feel it violates your civil rights don’t go there, I beleive attendance is optional yes?

Sorry Henry, but that’s a bit of a dodgy argument. By the same logic, we should all be implanted with microchips and be tracked by GPS and satellite cameras 24 hours a day, because, you know, ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, then you’ve got nothing to worry about’.

I gotta admit that I don’t know much about the whole night-club fingerprint escapade, but the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is just dodgy. You do have curtains in your house, don’t you?

Mrshmellowman 3:58 pm 13 Nov 08

Argument – why did I not learn to spell like everyone else!!! damn spelling

Mrshmellowman 3:57 pm 13 Nov 08

Manhole’s arguement – not argue

Mrshmellowman 3:56 pm 13 Nov 08

Just to clarify any misconception – there is a couple of things wrong with the premise of Manhole’s argument

When underage drinkers are identified and pulled out of nightclubs – the licensee (or their proxy i.e. a manager or security guard) is always informed of the circumstances. Basically when an underager is taken out of the club – the club staff always know because the person is escorted out of the premises.

Any underage person found on licensed premises is always asked how they got into the club in the first place. I.e., “were you required to show ID?” Quite often they will lie – that is true – but it comes down to security doing their jobs. Police and Liquor licensing inspectors know the places where security is doing the right thing as best they can, and they know where security is slack.

Any underage matters are referred to the ACT Liquor Licensing Board for hearing. Only if the matter is disputed will the licensee find themselves at the AAT.

I just make these points because a big chunk of Manhole’s argue is specious and could be misleading in the wider argument about fingerprinting.

AngryHenry 3:55 pm 13 Nov 08

If you’ve got nothing to hide it’s not a problem. If you feel it violates your civil rights don’t go there, I beleive attendance is optional yes?

PsydFX 3:35 pm 13 Nov 08

Pseudo Nym said :

And it conveniently permits data mining of night club going habits, complete with identifying information on anyone of interest.

There’s a good reason I don’t sign up to any store ‘loyalty’ cards and it applies here too.

I’ll assume that you don’t have Bank Accounts or Credit Cards, because those kind of things could lead to data mining of your spending habits.

Data mining happens all the time, there’s no point being a paranoid freak about it!

pug206gti 1:44 pm 13 Nov 08

The first mistake for anyone upset was to go to Sultans.

Pseudo Nym 1:25 pm 13 Nov 08

And it conveniently permits data mining of night club going habits, complete with identifying information on anyone of interest.

There’s a good reason I don’t sign up to any store ‘loyalty’ cards and it applies here too.

seekay 1:04 pm 13 Nov 08

How the **** does a bizarre and entirely heavy handed invasion of privacy protect anyone’s security?

This is an even more idiotic gesture than those experts in tokenism the Victorian Police patrolling nightclub areas in Hummers.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site