Jump to content

      



























Photo

Victoria Barwatch Program


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#81 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 12:38 AM

Roger,

Thanks for that post - but I think (?) my post covered that. It is all about intention. Anyone might record by accident another conversation ( yes, even in an elevator, or vehicle or wherever), while taking a video for whatever personal or business reasons. That is then posted to youtube, facebook or twitter on the assumption the recording was made in a public space.

Let's make an example - someone takes her family to Beacon Hill Park. Records a video of the kids feeding ducks at the pond, but within that is both a visual, and voice, background recording of two investment bankers on a bench saying "sell X company now". She posts the cute video to Facebook, Twitter and email, maybe even a personal blog - it's all about the kids and ducks - the intention is a family note.

But then someone on her Facebook group goes WOW - and sells that stock, it goes viral - and she ends up getting sued as the source. Actually, that would not happen in Canada - there might be an investigation, but an online home video is no 'legal fact' to sue. If she had gained financially from that knowledge - maybe.

Somewhat same issue with the YVR taser fiasco. RCMP took the video, in Vancouver airport, from the passenger (within the secure customs zone) who made the film. The Supreme Court of Canada verified police cannot interfere with recording or confiscate same from anyone: unless it is in a legally proscribed zone, and there are very few of those.

#82 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 08 August 2009 - 08:19 AM

But in VHF's case, surveilance equipment has been installed with the full knowledge that it can and does record private conversations between two people. The recording of the audio is no accident as it is in our YouTube example.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#83 Roger

Roger
  • Member
  • 284 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 05:30 PM

But in VHF's case, surveilance equipment has been installed with the full knowledge that it can and does record private conversations between two people. The recording of the audio is no accident as it is in our YouTube example.


Most of the signs I have seen in establishments say video surveillance. They do not say video/audio surveillance. There is a big difference between the two from a legal and customer point of view. Some customers, like me for example, would leave if I knew my conversations were being recorded. (However, I would reluctantly accept a video recording).

I wonder if VicHockeyFan can tell us what his sign says.

#84 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 05:39 PM

Most of the signs I have seen in establishments say video surveillance. They do not say video/audio surveillance. There is a big difference between the two from a legal and customer point of view. Some customers, like me for example, would leave if I knew my conversations were being recorded. (However, I would reluctantly accept a video recording).

I wonder if VicHockeyFan can tell us what his sign says.


Video and audio surveillance in use througout premises.

The bank doesn't tell you that you are being recorded as you talk to the teller, but you are. A lot more violence and robbery happens in bars than banks, by a very wide margin.

EDIT: many banks, by all means not all do they have audio on the tellers stations.

#85 Roger

Roger
  • Member
  • 284 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 05:43 PM

Video and audio surveillance in use througout premises.

The bank doesn't tell you that you are being recorded as you talk to the teller, but you are. A lot more violence and robbery happens in bars than banks, by a very wide margin.

EDIT: many banks, by all means not all do they have audio on the tellers stations.


VHF - Thanks for the quick reply.

Edit: We live in interesting times. I wonder how far audio/video surveillance will become entrenched in our lives as the years go by?
Makes me feel nervous but maybe I am too concerned about having my conversations and activities recorded. Kinda liked things the way they were a few years ago before we traded liberty/privacy for security.

#86 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 09:48 PM

It makes me nervous too for many of the same reasons. I feel sort of torn.

One side of me is deeply offended by the loss of privacy and with it, freedom. In the South West corner of China they have a saying: "The mountains are high and the emperor is far away." Well, these days, mountains or no mountains, the Emperor is listening to every word you speak if he so chooses.

The other side of my celebrates transparency! No secrets is another type of freedom. You are free to watch me, but I am free to watch you watch me. Yay digital age. Yay triumph of technology. Ra ra ra!
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#87 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 08 August 2009 - 10:07 PM

I'm not sure that a sign that says the audio is monitored and recorded is enough.

The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication.

The law gives the right of one of the people involved in the conversation to record it. You're not involved and as such, haven't been granted a right to record someone else's conversation.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#88 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 11:07 PM

The mental contortions people use to accept and justify surveillance are stunning.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=keGGXZ3pdZc

Bars are a place of business. I understand that a business has the right to know who's on the premises. There's even a business case for knowing, say, to have staff redcarpet repeat customers and ignore windowshoppers, eject former shoplifters, et cetera. Most businesses don't exercise that right because it costs staff time, but they do have the right.

Do they have the right to systematically share that information with other businesses, just because they say they are doing it? I can't think of any method of reasoning other than wishful thinking that says it follows.* The BCPC's finding is that there's no legal reasoning that says it follows, which is what counts in law.

I do appreciate that up to now, there's been grand co-operation between the competing businesses in the face of killjoy troublemakers. I haven't even heard of any outright abuses of the collected information. I just happen to agree that the information shouldn't be collected. VHF pointed out earlier that bars have a duty (and thus, in my opinion, a right) to ID patrons. However, to my understanding, that duty only extends as far as -verifying- that the person with the ID is the person on the ID, and that that person is of legal drinking age. If I'm wrong on that, do tell - and I hope my words are sweet, for tomorrow I may have to eat them.

* I had feared that it was just me being unimaginative.
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#89 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:59 AM

VHF pointed out earlier that bars have a duty (and thus, in my opinion, a right) to ID patrons. However, to my understanding, that duty only extends as far as -verifying- that the person with the ID is the person on the ID, and that that person is of legal drinking age. If I'm wrong on that, do tell - and I hope my words are sweet, for tomorrow I may have to eat them.


Fake IDs are quite common now. What was/is harder to fake was the magnetic strip info on the card. The Treoscope could tell us if the ID is legit. Treoscope could also protect against "passbacks" where say, two girls enter with their legit IDs, then one goes back out carrying both IDs and gives one to a girl with similar looks to to one on the second ID, but this new girl is actually underage, or does not have adequate ID of her own. Treoscope would alert of the previous entry. Now, if Treoscope hasn't alerted us, we now have a girl in the bar that is either A) underage with no ID, or B) of age with no ID. In both cases the minimum fine for the bar is $500.

I think a lot of people do not know that if you are in a bar, whether you are 19, 29, or 69 years old, you MUST have govt. issued picture ID on your person, PERIOD. If not, $500 fine to the bar. Even if the cops drag you out, fingerprint you and confirm your identity and age, the bar still gets a $500 fine for letting a person in without ID on them.

Car rental firms keep your credit card info, and drivers license info for years and years, maybe fofrever, and no one seems to mind that private company keeping and storing your information.

#90 Roger

Roger
  • Member
  • 284 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 11:36 AM

Fake IDs are quite common now. What was/is harder to fake was the magnetic strip info on the card. The Treoscope could tell us if the ID is legit.


I suspect it won't be long before a "compromise" is reached between the Privacy Commissioner and the BarWatch program. There are simple solutions to those that don't want their drivers license scanned by TreoScope devices and the data stored in a database.

1. Just take your business somewhere else.
2. Bring your passport and use that as ID.
3. Run a strong magnet over the magnetic stripe. Problem solved. The cops don't require the magnetic stripe when they stop you. I have not heard of anyone else using the stripe but TreoScope. Any car rental company I have used just copies down the relevant info.

Edit: One last thing for those concerned about privacy. Use cash to pay your bar bill. Don't give businesses that use TreoScope any more of your personal data. Your server will appreciate the fact that the size of your tip is not recorded anywhere.

#91 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 12:18 PM

^Rog, it's not quite that easy to just take your business elsewhere though since most pubs and bars were participating in it. In fact, almost all of them were.

Fake IDs are quite common now. What was/is harder to fake was the magnetic strip info on the card. The Treoscope could tell us if the ID is legit. Treoscope could also protect against "passbacks" where say, two girls enter with their legit IDs, then one goes back out carrying both IDs and gives one to a girl with similar looks to to one on the second ID, but this new girl is actually underage, or does not have adequate ID of her own. Treoscope would alert of the previous entry. Now, if Treoscope hasn't alerted us, we now have a girl in the bar that is either A) underage with no ID, or B) of age with no ID. In both cases the minimum fine for the bar is $500.


So what's next if Treoscope's aren't allowed? Is every person that works in a bar going to have to take a course to become an expert on fake ID? I thought that's why we have cops.

I think a lot of people do not know that if you are in a bar, whether you are 19, 29, or 69 years old, you MUST have govt. issued picture ID on your person, PERIOD. If not, $500 fine to the bar. Even if the cops drag you out, fingerprint you and confirm your identity and age, the bar still gets a $500 fine for letting a person in without ID on them.


That's ridiculous because why would a bar even ask for someone's ID is they are clearly of age? Why should every bar be responsible for everyone carrying ID?!?!!?
In chains by Keynes

#92 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 12:52 PM

Car rental firms keep your credit card info, and drivers license info for years and years, maybe fofrever, and no one seems to mind that private company keeping and storing your information.


The crucial difference being that they presumably don't publish or share that information with other parties, which is what the Treoscope system does.

#93 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 02:16 PM

That's ridiculous because why would a bar even ask for someone's ID is they are clearly of age? Why should every bar be responsible for everyone carrying ID?!?!!?


Well, yes, it's ridiculous. Write your MLA. Stupid or badly worded regulations don't end just because everyone knows they make no sense.
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#94 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 09 August 2009 - 02:43 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. implement a hashing system that stores a unique ID generated from the information contained on the DL and be done with it. Everyone wins, the system works as intended and no personal information is stored. Is it that hard?

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#95 Roger

Roger
  • Member
  • 284 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 04:21 PM

There is another issue associated with TreoScope technology that tramples on individuals rights. We live in a free society and people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Participating bars have the right to eject patrons from their establishment if they feel that they are not suitable customers. There are many legitimate reasons why a patron might be ejected but there are cases where there might be a misunderstanding and the owner chooses to eject the individual rather than deal with it. That is their prerogative.

However, the decision of one bar or restaurant owner should not limit the patron's ability to access other establishments. TreoScope calls this community alerts and it is a form of blacklisting. One could be flagged at a club in Nanaimo and denied entry in Victoria. This puts tremendous power in the hands of security personnel and club managers. They are judge and jury handing out sentences which impair an individuals ability to enter other business establishments. Here are some of the alerts that are logged according to TreoScope's FAQ

"Establishments can broadcast Community Alerts on patrons for everything from failure to pay and drink-tampering, to verbal threats, abuse, and involvement in a fight. Though there are few constraints on the subjects of reports that may be broadcast, it is important to note that TreoScope EnterSafe establishments are liable to ensure all information is reliable and accurate. All Alerts are logged with the author’s name and the establishment for which they work."

Judging from his posts I can imagine that VHF runs a good establishment and treats his patrons fairly. However, he does not know what happens in other establishments around BC and North America and only has the terse alert details on which to base a patrons entry into his club.

What happens if a patron gets charged incorrectly for drinks that he/she did not order? This could be due to a server error (i.e. wrong tab), misunderstanding or fraud on the part of the establishment. The customer is then told to pay up or we will blacklist you all over town. What about a fight? If I am sitting at a table and a fight breaks out it is common practice to throw the whole table out because that is easier than sorting out who did what. Does the whole table get flagged as fighters in the system even though some may have had nothing to do with it? It is easy to see that these information sharing systems with no legal authority oversight are ripe for abuse. A patron that is wrongly accused or blacklisted has no legal recourse, other than a lawsuit, to get the alert removed. They simply have to wait for the alert to eventually be removed from the system according to a TreoScope algorithm (1 week to a year).

#96 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:32 PM

I think a lot of people do not know that if you are in a bar, whether you are 19, 29, or 69 years old, you MUST have govt. issued picture ID on your person, PERIOD. If not, $500 fine to the bar. Even if the cops drag you out, fingerprint you and confirm your identity and age, the bar still gets a $500 fine for letting a person in without ID on them.


I agree with the others who expressed surprise/ incredulity that this is the law in BC (or Canada???). And I agree with Phil McAvity when he writes, "So what's next if Treoscope's aren't allowed? Is every person that works in a bar going to have to take a course to become an expert on fake ID? I thought that's why we have cops." (emphasis added)

There's this weird tendency here - can't quite put my finger on it - to let either 'education' or some sort of regulation (which the private sector is supposed to be responsible for) take the place of what should be a straightforward matter of law enforcement.

The whole bar-closing-hours issue has been dominated by this, as well. Councilors talk about 'educating' patrons about the harm they do pissing against heritage brick or other sorts of surfaces, vs using the facilities before they leave the bar. Pizza joints are supposed to 'regulate' street and social disorder. Bars are supposed to make sure that everyone 'makes nice' when they leave, and so on and so forth.

But there are laws on the books about not peeing in public and not being drunk and disorderly. Why is the issue of consequences being off-loaded to private establishments?

I lived for a long time in the US. I could take my toddler into a bar to meet a friend. My toddler was clearly underage. I was shocked when I came back here and had the people at the Strathcona go berserk when I tried to take my toddler from the general restaurant seating area to a bathroom that happened to be in the "bar" area. It really threw me - I thought, what the hell is your problem? Well, I guess putting bar owners and their staff in the role of police does that to management and staff. Weird.

Reading VHF's post, I see all the bizarre constraints that liquor establishments operate under - and being back here for many years now, I've become accustomed to the cops handing the responsibility for social disorder over to the private sector, too. Don't like it, though.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#97 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:48 PM

An 18-year old goes through all kinds of deceptive measures to enter the bar illegally. They understand that is is illegal for them to enter. Yet the bar-owner gets the $500 fine for not being ultra-vigilant - the offender, likely nothing. I've had more than a few PARENTS call or email me to say they know their son/daughter has been in the bar, and if they hear of it again, they'll call the police. But after talking to the parent, telling them how serious the offense is for both of us, I have never been able to convince one of them to bring me or email me a picture of the offender so that I can circulate it among staff.

Now, imagine going to the Bard and Banker. If you walk in when the hostess is not at her station and go up to the bar and order a drink, the bartender should ID you. Then when you sit down and order your second drink, the waitress ought to ID you. Then if your friends arrive, and you move upstairs for a bigger table, your new waitress ought to ID you. That's right, if your server does not know positively that you have been asked for ID, they are required to ask for it. That's what the law says, what Serving it Right says, luckily it hasn't got this stupid yet in practice.

#98 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:52 PM

I've had more than a few PARENTS call or email me to say they know their son/daughter has been in the bar, and if they hear of it again, they'll call the police.


Ouch. Why am I not surprised? Parents have a lot to answer for. They've off-loaded their kids to the school system for 18 or 19 years, expecting teachers to do their work. Now that their brats are teens, they want barkeepers to do their work.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#99 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:53 PM

^ What I mean is that a lot of parents have abdicated their responsibilities as parents. They want someone else to do all the rearing for them.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#100 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:59 PM

Ouch. Why am I not surprised? Parents have a lot to answer for. They've off-loaded their kids to the school system for 18 or 19 years, expecting teachers to do their work. Now that their brats are teens, they want barkeepers to do their work.


I had one just two months ago that even told me she knew her son was using his cousins ID. I said "perfect, that's a very serious offense", and I can turn both names over to the police and the other bar owners when I meet with them monthly. Of course, she would give me neither name.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users