• astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I can see the allure for places wanting to keep certain trouble-makers out as a precaution, but this gets so close to a privatized social credit score that it’s beyond uncomfortable.

    • conciselyverbose
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I feel like you should not be allowed to record any data until there’s a documented case with a police report at minimum. At that point, potentially restricting action becomes a legitimate security need.

      • dream_weasel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Idk about that level of escalation being necessary, maybe just repeat offenses. Where I went to college it’s got to be super serious for police to come into a bar.

        Repeat fights, or pukes on the floor, or belligerence to staff are all things I would think would be decent grounds to be turned away by ID. I mean, that happens now at gas stations and restaurants with security cam photos saying “don’t serve this person” posted at the register except it’s more public.

        I suppose it depends what data is recorded though, they don’t need your home address.

        • conciselyverbose
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          You can already handle people being repeated nuisances at a specific location without issue.

          Sharing any information at all absolutely should require a police report (and I’m aware that they already violate privacy other ways; that’s also not OK).

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      yeah, promising security/convenience over liberty is how they reel us in every time

      that and protecting the kids