New Zealand ID?

[Marmoot]

Just curious, you don't have any compulsory ID card for NewZealanders, do you?

Now, if you do not go overseas, you don't have passport. And if you don't drive, you wouldn't have drivers license. If you want to check in to a hotel and they ask for ID, what would you give them?

Better yet, if you want to open a bank account, what ID can you give?

And, if you want to open a mortgage, is it possible at all?

[wkid_one]

JP Verified Birth Cert is the next best option if you don't have photo ID. This will get you a bank account/home loan.

[matthewt]

Yer it's weird we don't. People have resisted because of over-hyped big brother fears. A lot of govt agencies and private institutions already datamatch for a number of reasons which is done with our consent and within the Privacy act. Has anyone ever read the fineprint in all sorts of finance/insurance/govt contracts ??

I wrote the application code for a large system that needed to match data with 100's of external vendors (provided a data-matching agreement is in place of course). Not having a uniform ID for people proved to be a major nightmare. The difference in people names stored in different computer systems is quite interesting. To the point where we had to allow for multiple aliases to be setup for people so that when we sent out a request it had the name the vendor expected which might not be the name we had on file (which was verified with a birth certificate or passport).

I lived in Singapore for nearly 3 years and they have had a national ID card for years, just has name, ID# and photo. I think they start from age 16 (probably when they kids do national service). Because of this I had to carry my passport around because a lot of the places I went for business required the ID card to be left at the security counter. My work visa had no photo so I had to leave my passport there. Took me a while to get used to that.

As for ID internally, my inlaws came to visit us in Singapore. My wifes mother had never been on a place/train/boat in her life (no really she hadn't!!). So they had to get certified copies of their birth certificates to get a passport. Hotels usually rely on a credit card because at the end of the day all they want is to get paid. I think it would be fairly rare not to have a drivers license nowdays.

A friend of mine got pulled over about 10 years ago for a random check (had a boy racer car so got pulled over a lot), it turns out someone with the same name and approx the same age had an arrest warrent out on them. At the time you didn't have to carry your drivers license on you so he spent 30 minutes on the road side why they verified exactly who he was/wasn't.

NZ will get a national ID card it's really just an matter of time.

[pete376403]

Singapore card has a lot more than id#, photo and name. But its all in a machine readable barcode

[James Deuce]

NZ will get a national ID card it's really just an matter of time.

Not if I've got anything to do with it, and it is an issue I'd die for. That sort of attitude will have people disappearing in the middle of the night, and no one asking questions.

[MacD]

which is done with our consent and within the Privacy act.


Do you really think you have any choice but to give consent in most of these situations? Generally it's a case of no consent, no service/product. No coercion in that of course...no sireee :buggerd:

Personally, I think its great that you had so much difficulty data-matching!

[MikeL]

NZ will get a national ID card it's really just an matter of time.

And we will accept it because it will all be made to sound so reasonable. For several years in the 1970s I lived in France where everyone had to not just have, but carry on them, a national identity card. It was also a legal requirement that if you moved house you had to report within so many days to the nearest police station to officially update your details. At the time English people and NZers were appalled by this bureaucratic intrusion but the French just shrugged their shoulders, grumbled about it but got on with living their lives in the slightly anarchic sort of way that managed to preserve the maximum of individual freedoms. But those were more innocent times...

Around the same time in N.Z. there were attempts from time to time to make it mandatory to carry your driver's licence on you when driving, but these were always knocked back on the grounds that this was a free society, not a totalitarian state. It would be the thin end of the wedge, we used to say.
Well, the wedge is getting thicker. 9/11 and subsequent events have been an opportune pretext that western governments generally have found irresistible. Watch this space.

[pete376403]

Something on the toob the other night about a national ID card being introduced in Britain. They're are just trying to find the right personal identifier (fingerprint, retinal scan, etc) before its introduced wholesale. Gattica here we come.
BTW, ever looked at what the US Patriot Act allows the feds to do in the USA - now that is really scary

[sAsLEX]

Do you really think you have any choice but to give consent in most of these situations? Generally it's a case of no consent, no service/product. No coercion in that of course...no sireee :buggerd:

Personally, I think its great that you had so much difficulty data-matching!


More in that if you dont find out about what they have done then it couldn't of happened ,they can do alot of things and you will never know!

[Lou Girardin]

When it comes, the great unwashed will say "if you've done nothing wrong, you don't have to worry".
That particular rational has lost us a lot of rights.

[Ms Piggy]

Well I think they're definitely in the process of bringing in a National I.D card. I work for Internal Affairs and you no longer need a full birth cert (if born in N.Z) or marriage cert (if married here) b/c we have a new system whereby those details can be verified though our data base. Makes it easier and is kinda logical b/c Internal Affairs look after Births, Deaths & Marriages, N.Z Citizenship and N.Z Passports.

Although that could all get a lot stricter now with these forged passports turning up!

[jrandom]

And we will accept it because it will all be made to sound so reasonable ... the wedge is getting thicker.

At this rate, it won't be long until there are dour uniformed men at regular intervals in our daily lives, asking "Your papers, please".

Still, we've got it a HELL of a lot better here than the way things are getting over in Fortress USA. I do hope we don't follow their lead.

And yes, the real problem is that none of these measures do ANYTHING in real terms to help 'security'. They just give the government more control over the sheep-like law-abiding citizens. I don't generally bother with being a 'civil liberties' nut; it's just that it's so obvious what the motivations are behind this stuff.

Or maybe the people designing the systems really are just stunningly *thick* and believe their own rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure.

[matthewt]

Do you really think you have any choice but to give consent in most of these situations? Generally it's a case of no consent, no service/product. No coercion in that of course...no sireee :buggerd:

Of course you have a choice. If you don't want you credit details everywhere then do it the old fashion way and save money first. But my point was that the vast majority of people never read the fine print, they just sign away.



Personally, I think its great that you had so much difficulty data-matching!

Well, it probably didn't take a great deal of extra work, it just made it for problems when it came time to actually match with the external parties. In my case the people we were matching recieved assistence from us rather than getting any sort of penatly. But because of the matching process a number of people would of been under extreme hardship due to delays in finding all their details in time.

The real problem here is not data matching, it's the controls around what is matched and for what reasons.

Do you really think without a national ID card you're any more hidden than with one ??

[matthewt]

Not if I've got anything to do with it, and it is an issue I'd die for. That sort of attitude will have people disappearing in the middle of the night, and no one asking questions.

That sort of thing already happens now. Again this comes back to who is allowed to match and for what reason. You're right though, there are people in certain positions that would have access to the info and not care about the privacy act.

Just look at how the US is going with it's "Patriot" act.

[matthewt]

BTW, ever looked at what the US Patriot Act allows the feds to do in the USA - now that is really scary

I looked at that at a US civil liberties site a few months ago, man they rushed that puppy through and now people are only just starting to realise what they have actually lost. A lot of it was pitched at helping "keep the US safe" but there have already been a number of cases where the Patriot act has been used to solve internal crimes.

[toads]

When it comes, the great unwashed will say "if you've done nothing wrong, you don't have to worry".
That particular rational has lost us a lot of rights.

Exactly Lou, and what's worse the general population here in NZ seem to get their cues on what to think from watching TV, disturbing to hear people quoting last nights tv viewing as undisputable fact, personally I prefer to glean my own information from a variety of sources besides NZ free to air tv and make my own judgements, a national id card is just one more personal liberty down the toilet, in order to control the masses. I think it sux. By the way which of you out their would trust the powers that be with your life or the lives of your kids?

[MacD]

Of course you have a choice. If you don't want you credit details everywhere then do it the old fashion way and save money first.


I wasn't just referring to credit details. If data is being collected for a specific purpose then that's fine. I don't expect a bank/finance company to loan me money without assessing the risk, or an insurance company to insure me without asking for information. The issue becomes when apparently unrelated information starts being matched.

My point is that you really have no choice about giving consent in many cases, whether its financial, health related, travel related etc.



Do you really think without a national ID card you're any more hidden than with one ??

No, I'm not that naive (and I have some experience in this area). Its not a question of being hidden, its a question of what would a national ID card be used for, and do we really need one? Something that should be robustly debated, not just done because the somebody thought it would be a good idea.

[matthewt]

No, I'm not that naive (and I have some experience in this area). Its not a question of being hidden, its a question of what would a national ID card be used for, and do we really need one? Something that should be robustly debated, not just done because the somebody thought it would be a good idea.

Exactly, it all comes down to controls.

I imagine the selling points for those that want it would be to stop fraud of various kinds (benefit fraud or identity fraud). My problem is that I doubt if it was brought in there would be sufficient controls put in place. Being a Database guru I know just how easy it'll be for someone to tie all sorts of info together and how simple it would be for a data warehouse to start trawling that data.

Didn't I read somewhere that the police can now take DNA samples for people "suspected" of a crime that would lead to more than 7 years prison (or maybe it's in a bill before parliment) ?? As Pete said "Gattica here we come".

[BritStorm]

While there a lots of people saying no to an ID card, you're all using them in another name already - your birth cirtificates, passports and carrying your driving licence with you at all times. It's already here!

While I don't think there is a push towards an ID card here, there is a trial of them being started in the UK. I see the reason for this being developments in the storage of so-called biometric data such as fingerprints, retinal scans, embedded photo. This means there is something to actually cross reference on the spot. This is also one of the reasons you need to have your pic and prints takien enetering the US now as NZ does not yet (but it will soon) have a passport that contians such biometric info.

One of the resaons given in the UK for ID cards is to cut down on fraud against the Government. There really are many cases of multiple benefit applications over there - people with multipul identities just becase you can start with a National Inssurance (IRD) number and create your own identitiy from there. (I had a mate who used to work in Customs and apprently it's easy to creat multiple IDs.) Wasn't there something on Fair Go last year where people where getting hold of birth cirtificates (clearly no picture on that!) some utilty bills as proof of address, sitting a driving test and there you go - photo ID to do whatever you like with.

In short, ID is already here and compulsory if you want to do anything, it's just the methods used seem relatively easy to fake.

What would you think if a credit card company issued cards containg embedded biometric data? Would you think that's a great way of protecting me from fraud or just more big brother?

[matthewt]

While there a lots of people saying no to an ID card, you're all using them in another name already - your birth cirtificates, passports and carrying your driving licence with you at all times. It's already here!

Right you are, NZ'ers are already tagged with numerous ID by the govt and private businesses. It's not that hard already to tie several of those together.



Wasn't there something on Fair Go last year where people where getting hold of birth cirtificates (clearly no picture on that!) some utilty bills as proof of address, sitting a driving test and there you go - photo ID to do whatever you like with.

Yes, they sent in someone to renew a different persons drivers license. So the agency (the AA I think) actually put the persons photo (they never checked the existing photo matched the person in front of them) onto someone elses details and thus they "stole" the persons identity. It would of been easy from there to start getting other forms of ID in this persons name using the drivers license. They never told the person and showed up the next day to show him his new license with the other persons photo on.

[pete376403]

I looked at that at a US civil liberties site a few months ago, man they rushed that puppy through and now people are only just starting to realise what they have actually lost. A lot of it was pitched at helping "keep the US safe" but there have already been a number of cases where the Patriot act has been used to solve internal crimes.
Such as Jose Padilla, no doubt.

[matthewt]

Such as Jose Padilla, no doubt.

Yer, they kind of walked all over the 5th ammednment by slamming him in a navy brig for so long without charging him. I see that the US court of appeal voted 2-1 that a US citizen couldn't be an "emeny combatant". Very fishy that he went from being a material witness in a possible dirty bomb threat to a enemy combatant (and therefore held in the military brig without a warrant, access to an attorney, or any charges filed against him) the day before the judge was to rule on his status as a witness.

[jrandom]

Yer, they kind of walked all over the 5th ammednment by slamming him in a navy brig for so long without charging him

Due process. Hah. I don't think it exists anymore in the US, not if the gummint decides it has a relevant agenda.

They seem to be on a mission to draw a big red line through every one of the constitutional amendments. Wonder how long it'll take them to officially scrap the whole thing and form the 'People's Socialist Republic of America'.

[spudchucka]

Exactly, Didn't I read somewhere that the police can now take DNA samples for people "suspected" of a crime that would lead to more than 7 years prison (or maybe it's in a bill before parliment) ?? As Pete said "Gattica here we come".
Not people suspected of committing a crime, if they are "convicted" of a specified offence then a compulsion order can be applied for, it still needs to be granted by the Court.

All the arguements stated so far re a national ID card were rolled around on talk back etc when the photo drivers licences first came out. Personaly I don't see any need for a national ID card but really wouldn't care at all if it was introduced.

[Holy Roller]

All the arguements stated so far re a national ID card were rolled around on talk back etc when the photo drivers licences first came out. Personaly I don't see any need for a national ID card but really wouldn't care at all if it was introduced.
There talk of ID implants that have already been trailed similar to the ID implants that dogs can get so their owners can be found if little doggy gets lost. Then there's the smart card coming out we have to update our eftpos machine so that it is compliant with the new technology :argh: another big expense for small retailers.

[Hitcher]

Let's just cut to the chase and get personal ID barcodes tattoed on our foreheads. Could become an attractive fashion statement...

For the benefit of those so inclined...
Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

[matthewt]

Not people suspected of committing a crime, if they are "convicted" of a specified offence then a compulsion order can be applied for, it still needs to be granted by the Court.

All the arguements stated so far re a national ID card were rolled around on talk back etc when the photo drivers licences first came out. Personaly I don't see any need for a national ID card but really wouldn't care at all if it was introduced.

Hey Spud, if you're going to quote me don't cut and paste the middle out. When I said exactly (in bold) it had nothing to do with the dna thing.

Thanks for clearing the DNA bit up though.

[Marmoot]

Thank's for the info, guys.

But, now coming back to the beginning, consider this situation:
I'm working in a Hotel, where the management require a photo ID upon check in. The reason being we need to verify the identity (read: name) of the person checking in. Why? Because, if in case something breaks (e.g., somebody died, or the hotel caught on fire, or the person got involved in a fight, etc) we can verify the identity of the culprit, or the body, etc and that would save up some trouble. In the event of the extremes, we can probably find the person that is responsible.

Now, the problem begins with local people checking in and insisting they do not have ID for they never travel or drive.
I'd hate to say we cannot admit them, for this brings up quite a number of harsh debate.
But, then again, without photoID I cannot admit them.

Any suggestion on what to do?

What about 18+ card? Is it verifiable (in term of tracing the address, etc)?

[toads]

I think the main issue here, is while it makes sense to have a system that readily identifies individuals and ties all their details together neatly and tidily, the fact is most people value their privacy, the majority of people are reasonably honest and law abiding, the identification thing should be compulsory for all convicted felons and fraudsters, the rest of us should have a bloody choice, yes I know big brother has been here for a long time, but we can all choose to pay in cash, and not have hp's, once there is a bullet proof cashless system that is on a global scale, all that is out the window, the id card is how that system will be initiated and tied together, and yes a barcode on the forehead would be great cos then we could at least see who wasn't complying!

[pete376403]

Thank's for the info, guys.

But, now coming back to the beginning, consider this situation:
I'm working in a Hotel, where the management require a photo ID upon check in. The reason being we need to verify the identity (read: name) of the person checking in. Why? Because, if in case something breaks (e.g., somebody died, or the hotel caught on fire, or the person got involved in a fight, etc) we can verify the identity of the culprit, or the body, etc and that would save up some trouble. In the event of the extremes, we can probably find the person that is responsible.

Now, the problem begins with local people checking in and insisting they do not have ID for they never travel or drive.
I'd hate to say we cannot admit them, for this brings up quite a number of harsh debate.
But, then again, without photoID I cannot admit them.

Any suggestion on what to do?

What about 18+ card? Is it verifiable (in term of tracing the address, etc)?
You call your management and let them explain why the persons not having
a national ID card (complete with the bureaucracy that entails) just to possibly save the hotel management a bit of effort, means they can't stay . How many deaths, fires, fights does your hotel have on any given day? Doesn't sound like the sort of place I'd want to stay at.
I've stayed in quite a few hotels both in NZ and overseas and don't think I've ever been asked for photo ID (however this is all pre 9-11)

[matthewt]

But, now coming back to the beginning, consider this situation:I'm working in a Hotel, where the management require a photo ID upon check in.

But that really comes down to the Hotels policy. If they insist on a photoID then they can. It may mean that they lose a small % of clients but they may consider that a small price to pay for the added security of knowing the person in the presidential suite isn't using a stolen Amex.

[Marmoot]

Pete: it is all a "just in case" scenario, but I cant blame you. It is a cheap hotel, and I understand everyone has their preference.

But, anyhow, say you own a hotel, would you admit someone paying cash only to go in without ID? And, if you do, what would you think when the next morning the person is already gone along with your tv and most of the bed things? I mean, what's stopping them? And, the next thing in your mind is that you don't even have that person's real name.

Any idea for this situation?

P.S.
The reason I'm asking this is that I'm trying to think about a system that is, while enabling good security, is also convenient as much as possible to the guests.

[Firefight]

Been thinking about this one Marmoot, some companies will ask for a copy of a power bill or rates demmand made out in your name ?, not as good as photo ID, but must give some extra security ?? what do you think , ? would it work in your case.

F/F

[Marmoot]

That power bill (etc) is for establishing your address. But it only works when they already know your name (thus why normally they would require 2 forms of ID. 1 for establishing your name, and the other to establish your address).

Currently my place requires either Passport, student ID, drivers license, or credit card with picture. Basically anything with picture.

That brings another debate into mind as well. What do you think of an establishment's right to inspect your bags if you go into it (Warehouse comes to mind)?
I mean, you have your initial choice of going in or not, right? So, if you do choose to go in, doesn't that give them the right to inspect your bag? You're in their property afterall?

[James Deuce]

That power bill (etc) is for establishing your address. But it only works when they already know your name (thus why normally they would require 2 forms of ID. 1 for establishing your name, and the other to establish your address).

Currently my place requires either Passport, student ID, drivers license, or credit card with picture. Basically anything with picture.

That brings another debate into mind as well. What do you think of an establishment's right to inspect your bags if you go into it (Warehouse comes to mind)?
I mean, you have your initial choice of going in or not, right? So, if you do choose to go in, doesn't that give them the right to inspect your bag? You're in their property afterall?

No they can't inspect your bag unless a Police person is present. Though most people cave immediately. You might be in their property, but the bag is your property.

I've solved it by never going in to the Warehouse carrying a bag.

[Marmoot]

never carry a bag is a good idea.

However, how about the argument of condition of entry? I think a condition of entry holds as long as the premises owner makes it clear in front before someone goes into the shop, right?

Amazing how complex legalities can become once you're involved in a customer-based business.....I wish I'm just a simple programmer.... :o

[Skyryder]

No they can't inspect your bag unless a Police person is present. Though most people cave immediately. You might be in their property, but the bag is your property.

I've solved it by never going in to the Warehouse carrying a bag.

Not even the Police can inspect your bag WITHOUT A WARRENT. And the warrent must specify the property that the police believe that the bag contains. In other words they can not go on a 'fishing expedition.' Now here is another myth. The Police can search without a warrent for drugs. Yes they can but they must have 'reasonable cause.'

I never let any security guard at any shop inspect my bag for whatever reason. I have on one occasion even refused the Police when they were called by the stores Manager. My wife is a JP and on that occasion I used my cell phone to let her know what was happening. She made one call and about five minutes later the officer recieved a radio transmission and I was aloud to leave. Before doing so I insisted that the officer instruct the store manager the legal rights that his customers had. Then I invoked the stores policy of refunded goods and personally refused to leave the managers office untill this was complied with. Then I opened my bag and told them that they had needlessly not only lost a sale but a customer also. :thud: I do not often put in the boot but on this occassion I just could not resist. :2thumbsup

Skyryder

PS Someone mentioned a condition of entry. When you for arguments sake go to a concert or a sports match the venue organisers can prohibit you from entering the grounds if you refuse a visual search of bags etc. They can reserve right of entry, as can a bar resturant etc. In this you are informed before you enter the premises. In other words you are not only given the choice but also give lawful information. In this the choice is yours. You agree to the terms and conditions of entry or you leave. No one has the right to enter private property. However in retail stores a sign that says something to the effect that YOU MUST allow the inspection of your bag is not only wrong in law but what happens if for some reason you do not see it. Have you forfieted your rights simply by a lack of observation? I think not.

[FROSTY]

good onya dude.
Actually on saturday baby bikie and I "stole " A pair of shoes.
He was trying em on and diddnt want to take em off--so I pulled the tag off and put it on the checkout counter for the guy to scan -he screwed em up and threw em away -dang it I diddnt notice till I got home i haddnt paid for em

[spudchucka]

Hey Spud, if you're going to quote me don't cut and paste the middle out. When I said exactly (in bold) it had nothing to do with the dna thing.

Thanks for clearing the DNA bit up though.
Whats the big deal? I didn't delette the "EXACTLY"? So what?? I was only as you say clearing up the DNA matter. Whats the point in quoting back the rest of your post as it was not relevant to my reply?

[spudchucka]

Not even the Police can inspect your bag WITHOUT A WARRENT. And the warrent must specify the property that the police believe that the bag contains. In other words they can not go on a 'fishing expedition.' Now here is another myth. The Police can search without a warrent for drugs. Yes they can but they must have 'reasonable cause.'

That is all 100% correct. The bag inspection thing at shops is search by consent. No consent = no search, even for the police. Where this changes is when police have good cause to suspect that a person has shoplifted any property and they are arrested, then they and their bags can be searched pursuant to the arrest.

To search for drugs without warrant police need to establish "reasonable grounds to believe" drugs are present on the person, vehicle, property before invoking the power of search. The unmistakable stink of cannabis is the classic scenario. There are other situations where search without warrant is possible ie: for firearms, stolen goods and offencive weapons.

[Lou Girardin]

Slightly off-topic, but Phil Goff is talked about changing the 'proceeds of crime act' so that it doesn't require a conviction. In other words, they'll take your assets if they suspect it was ill-gotten.
As for barcode tatoos, the Nazis had an identifier for the Jews 70 years ago.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

[pete376403]

Slightly off-topic, but Phil Goff is talked about changing the 'proceeds of crime act' so that it doesn't require a conviction. In other words, they'll take your assets if they suspect it was ill-gotten.
As for barcode tatoos, the Nazis had an identifier for the Jews 70 years ago.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

Not just Jews, even though they seem to get all the attention. Gypsys, homosexuals, all sorts ended up with the Nazi tattoo. (BTW, and now this is really getting off topic - do you know the origin of the number? It corresponded to the IBM punch card number that had all the persons details. "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black)

[jrandom]

To search for drugs without warrant police need to establish "reasonable grounds to believe" drugs are present on the person, vehicle, property before invoking the power of search. The unmistakable stink of cannabis is the classic scenario.

Indeed.

Borrowed a ute to haul some stuff around a while back. Popped back past the guy's place at one point and he ran out yelling and waving his arms, extracted a big bag of weed from under the passenger seat with a very red face. My wife (sitting in said passenger seat!) had been sniffing occasionally with a funny look on her face all afternoon, and was Not Amused at the thought of what could have happened had I attracted the attention of the traffic boys.

For that matter, how much trouble *would* I have been in, I wonder? I imagine that if said chappie with the ute (which wasn't even his, it was on loan while his 4x4 was being serviced) had denied he'd ever seen the dope, I would have had to deal with whatever possession charges are appropriate for a baggie under the passenger seat. Of course, our relationship would have deteriorated slightly after that point. Possibly to the level of him visiting A&E with an improbable story about walking into doorframes.

[matthewt]

That is all 100% correct. The bag inspection thing at shops is search by consent. No consent = no search, even for the police. Where this changes is when police have good cause to suspect that a person has shoplifted any property and they are arrested, then they and their bags can be searched pursuant to the arrest.


How is "good cause" defined ?? Does this mean if you refuse to give constent they simply arrest you, search your bag and then let you go if they find nothing ??

[Marmoot]

Someone mentioned a condition of entry. When you for arguments sake go to a concert or a sports match the venue organisers can prohibit you from entering the grounds if you refuse a visual search of bags etc. They can reserve right of entry, as can a bar resturant etc. In this you are informed before you enter the premises. In other words you are not only given the choice but also give lawful information. In this the choice is yours. You agree to the terms and conditions of entry or you leave. No one has the right to enter private property. However in retail stores a sign that says something to the effect that YOU MUST allow the inspection of your bag is not only wrong in law but what happens if for some reason you do not see it. Have you forfieted your rights simply by a lack of observation? I think not.

In the light of this, then what's the difference of "the conditions of entry for a concert" and "the conditions of entry for a Warehouse Store" (provided that it is given in big letters right at the entrance)?
Because, if they are the same, then effectively the Warehouse has the right to search your bag since, by entering, you have given consent to that conditions, am I wrong?
If they are not the same, how can a law be different for similar situations?

P.S.
all this is on the base of assumption that the sign is non-mistakable.
i.e., the sign is displayed clearly in big size on the entrance, the entrance cannot be mistaken, and let's assume (for argument's sake) that 99.9% people will see it, unless they choose not to (like deliberately engage in a deep conversation, or walk in with eyes closed, or deliberately look down on the floor).

[matthewt]

P.S.
all this is on the base of assumption that the sign is non-mistakable.
i.e., the sign is displayed clearly in big size on the entrance, the entrance cannot be mistaken, and let's assume (for argument's sake) that 99.9% people will see it, unless they choose not to (like deliberately engage in a deep conversation, or walk in with eyes closed, or deliberately look down on the floor).

I went into one of the larger warehouse's today in bike gear + full backpack to pick up a dvd. On the way in I was looking for but didn't see any signs warning me about rules of entry or anything like it. The security guy saw me enter and leave without asking about my backpack (which came off so I could get my wallet out of the side pocket).

[spudchucka]

How is "good cause" defined ?? Does this mean if you refuse to give constent they simply arrest you, search your bag and then let you go if they find nothing ??
Well that is a possability but in reality if police were called to a shop to deal with a suspected shoplifter and a staff member says that they saw the person pocket something then that will be quite sufficient as good cause to suspect, which the officer must form in their mind before arresting someone.

If it was later found that it was all a big misunderstanding then the person can be released without charge and the officer has done nothing wrong as they had "good cause to suspect". The key word being "suspect".

[matthewt]

Well that is a possability but in reality if police were called to a shop to deal with a suspected shoplifter and a staff member says that they saw the person pocket something then that will be quite sufficient as good cause to suspect, which the officer must form in their mind before arresting someone.

If it was later found that it was all a big misunderstanding then the person can be released without charge and the officer has done nothing wrong as they had "good cause to suspect". The key word being "suspect".

I suppose what I was trying to find out was that if the shop saw nothing and the officer was just annoyed that I had (politely) not given consent could he then arrest me and take it from there.

Does it come down to the officer as to whether or not they think I won't give consent because I have something to hide (in the bag that is) or I'm just trying to protect my rights ??

I accept that if the shop had seen me put something in my bag (maybe my own sunglasses for example) then it would be fair enough to suspect maybe I'd flogged something.

[SPman]

Just look at how the US is going with it's "Patriot" act. And Patriot 2 is even worse.
They (and others), seem to have lost sight of one of the sayings of one of their their founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin -
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_112.gif

[Marmoot]

Then, for proving your suspicion, you have to call the cops.

So, too add to the can of worms, if we remember that you have no rights to detain somebody in your shop without their consent (as this would technically mean kidnapping, right?), the person can just say you're being ridiculous and walk out of your shop.
Then, if the police cannot find the person, the case will not be resolved. You could just be paranoid, but hey you could also be missing something from your shop. And if you do, then there's no way to prevent it in the first place since you don't have the right to detain the person until proven unguilty, or to search the bag to prove his innocence.

Wow, civil liberty......looks like a liberty to one is a liability to others, eh?
(And, if it is like that, I bet there are a lot of people abusing that system already....)

Or is there a detail that I missed?

Come to think of it, if we deem ourselves to virtually limitless freedom, as is the goal of civil liberty, then what about other people's freedom?
For example, I can say I have right to throw my cigarette butt out of my car's window, and there's nothing you can do to stop me even if it lands on your lap. Is that too extreme? But that would be an example of MY civil liberty, eh?

[MikeL]

Wow, civil liberty......looks like a liberty to one is a liability to others, eh?
Come to think of it, if we deem ourselves to virtually limitless freedom, as is the goal of civil liberty, then what about other people's freedom?

This, surely, is what makes the law so fascinating and so exasperating. It has to reconcile diametric opposites (your freedom and my rights). It is also what makes the law so necessary. Without it, we are savages, with only the law of the jungle.

[Skyryder]

In the light of this, then what's the difference of "the conditions of entry for a concert" and "the conditions of entry for a Warehouse Store" (provided that it is given in big letters right at the entrance)?
Because, if they are the same, then effectively the Warehouse has the right to search your bag since, by entering, you have given consent to that conditions, am I wrong?
If they are not the same, how can a law be different for similar situations?

P.S.
all this is on the base of assumption that the sign is non-mistakable.
i.e., the sign is displayed clearly in big size on the entrance, the entrance cannot be mistaken, and let's assume (for argument's sake) that 99.9% people will see it, unless they choose not to (like deliberately engage in a deep conversation, or walk in with eyes closed, or deliberately look down on the floor).

Let me use the case of blind person. In law they have no more and no less rights than ourselves. A blind person goes to a concert and the security guard asks him if he can look in his bag. The blind person refuses. He does not go to the concert. Security is acting on the orders of the promoter who has hired the venue for the night duration or whatever. You can be refused admission for security reasons. The choice is yours. Accept the conditions of entry or leave. Your bag is searched with your permission before entering the property. You get to see the concert. In the case of a retail store there may be a sighn to the effect that your bag MUST be opened as a condition of entry but in the case of our blind man who does not see the sign and even if he was told and he agreed as a condition of entry he still has the right to chang his mind if he so chooses and invoke his legal rights. Marmoot the conditions of entry are not the same they are entirely different. One is a search prior to entry and one is after entry. Both the concert promoter and the store do have the right to refuse entry for whatever reason they choose but the store can not carry out an illegal search as a matter of policy after you have left the store: period.

Skyryder

Skyryder

[Marmoot]

Skyryder: I can see your point in that, but I think we approached the problem from different perspective.

I was not talking about the different conditions of entry (1 is 'search before entry' and the other is 'search after entry'), but rather 'complying to a condition of entry'.

Suppose if there is a guard saying to every coming guest to the Warehouse "hey, if you go in with your bag, we will have to search it on your exit", would it give the shop the right to search the bag?
(in other word: "hey, this is my condition. If you want to go in, you have to abide it")

In that case, would the shop have, or not have, the right to search? :spudwhat:

[Skyryder]

How is "good cause" defined ?? Does this mean if you refuse to give constent they simply arrest you, search your bag and then let you go if they find nothing ??

Good cause or 'reasonable cause can be fined as 'your' actions that may lead the observer to believe that an offence "may" have been commited. Let us suppose you are an asmhatic and have entered a store carrying a bag. The security camera has captured you opening your bag so that you can use your inhaler. Now just as you pull the inhaler out of you bag to use another customer blocks the view so that the camera does no capture the reason for yourself to open the bag in the store. You take a couple of puffs and place your inhaler back into your bag just as you come back into camera view. You have been captured on camera opeing your bage and closing it for no apperant reason. That would be reasonble cause and you could be detained by the police and searched under such circumstances by the police and not by the stores security. Refusing to give your consent is your right and can not be used as reasonable cause. Hope this helps


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Skyryder: I can see your point in that, but I think we approached the problem from different perspective.

I was not talking about the different conditions of entry (1 is 'search before entry' and the other is 'search after entry'), but rather 'complying to a condition of entry'.

Suppose if there is a guard saying to every coming guest to the Warehouse "hey, if you go in with your bag, we will have to search it on your exit", would it give the shop the right to search the bag?
(in other word: "hey, this is my condition. If you want to go in, you have to abide it")

In that case, would the shop have, or not have, the right to search? :spudwhat:

What you are saying is that the guard is telling the customers what the sighn says that as a condition of entry you 'must' allow your bag to be searched / inspected. Makes no difference sighn wise or verbal wise

They (security guards) do not have the right to search you bag. Even if you agreed as a condition of entry you have the right to change your mind. This agreement should not be confused with a contractual agreement. A contract is an agreement where there is an exchange that has been agreed by two or more parties. You go into the Warehouse and purchase one of their items. You agree to pay what they ask with the understanding that if you are not satisfied then you will get a refund by producing proof that you puchased the article from one of their stores. In other words you have agreed to their terms and conditions and pay the correct price. They have also agreed by way of contract that if you are not satisfied, you get the refund. An exchange has taken place. Not so with an agreement where no exchange takes place. No goods or services have been provided and no money has changed hands. Tell the security guard to SOD OFF.



Skyryder

[Marmoot]

What you are saying is that the guard is telling the customers what the sighn says that as a condition of entry you 'must' allow your bag to be searched / inspected. Makes no difference sighn wise or verbal wise

They (security guards) do not have the right to search you bag. Even if you agreed as a condition of entry you have the right to change your mind. This agreement should not be confused with a contractual agreement. A contract is an agreement where there is an exchange that has been agreed by two or more parties. You go into the Warehouse and purchase one of their items. You agree to pay what they ask with the understanding that if you are not satisfied then you will get a refund by producing proof that you puchased the article from one of their stores. In other words you have agreed to their terms and conditions and pay the correct price. They have also agreed by way of contract that if you are not satisfied, you get the refund. An exchange has taken place. Not so with an agreement where no exchange takes place. No goods or services have been provided and no money has changed hands. Tell the security guard to SOD OFF.
Skyryder

Then what about the term "Verbal Agreement"? I know that the Law admits Verbal Agreement. Wouldn't the case of "security guard" in my example be a case of verbal agreement between the customer and the shop then?
If it is, then one party cannot change its mind without the consent of the other party, right?

Even if I am off and it is true according to your example that the customer have the right to change their mind, that would mean that if they change their mind about the search consequently they have to change the decision on entering the premises too, right? Which means, if they suddenly change their mind and refuse the guard to inspect the bag, at that instant they have to immediately exit the premises. And this means at that INSTANT, not at the moment when the guard ask to search the bag upon exit.

Another interesting point is: the condition of entry states "if you come in you have to agree for us to search your bag upon exit". That means, once you agree, you are bound to be searched upon exit. That means once you enter, you have done your part of action and that is irreversible. As an analogy to your example about contract, your 'coming in' would mean 'your payment', and that would be bound to the term and condition of the shop which is 'your bag being searched'. Would it not?

Did I miss something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[spudchucka]

I suppose what I was trying to find out was that if the shop saw nothing and the officer was just annoyed that I had (politely) not given consent could he then arrest me and take it from there.

Does it come down to the officer as to whether or not they think I won't give consent because I have something to hide (in the bag that is) or I'm just trying to protect my rights ??

I accept that if the shop had seen me put something in my bag (maybe my own sunglasses for example) then it would be fair enough to suspect maybe I'd flogged something.
Its a subjective thing to a certain degree but to me just a refusal to allow the bag to be searched would not be enough to have good cause to suspect and then arrest. The circumstances would have to contribute to the suspition as in the shoplifter seen putting something in their pocket or bag and trying to leave the store without paying.

In reality the cops wouldn't even likely attend a job where a shopper had refused to have their bag inspected unless there was more to it than just a refusal to allow the search.

[spudchucka]

Tell the security guard to SOD OFF.
Skyryder
Fair enough if you feel that strongly about civil liberties but I really can't see how opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Whenever I've done it they just take a very quick look and say thanks, they don't actually search it by rumaging through it. In fact if they did put their hands into a persons bag they would be opening themselves up for all sorts of allegations to be made against them.

Its not like they are asking you to drop your dacks and in reality thats probably how more stolen goods makes it out of shops than in bags.

[Skyryder]

Fair enough if you feel that strongly about civil liberties but I really can't see how opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Whenever I've done it they just take a very quick look and say thanks, they don't actually search it by rumaging through it. In fact if they did put their hands into a persons bag they would be opening themselves up for all sorts of allegations to be made against them.

Its not like they are asking you to drop your dacks and in reality thats probably how more stolen goods makes it out of shops than in bags.

Yes you are right the security guards do not place their hands in bags. They can if necessary ask you to accompany them to the managers office and ask you to empty the contents out. That is what happened to myself and in this I refused. I am in no postion to critisize you in anyway as to the reason why you allow your bag to be 'searched' and looking into your private property is a search. You state in your post that you really can't see how opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Yes I do consider it offensive for a complete stranger to insist that he/she has the right to look in my bag as a matter of the store's policy. As an honest customer I refuse to allow myself to be treated as a suspect on the basis of policy. One of the reasons that this is so prevalent in New Zealand is precisely because of what you stated. opening your bag can be so offensive unless you have something in there to conceal. Next time you are asked to open your bag try a little self respect. It realy is good for personal development.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Then what about the term "Verbal Agreement"? I know that the Law admits Verbal Agreement. Wouldn't the case of "security guard" in my example be a case of verbal agreement between the customer and the shop then?
If it is, then one party cannot change its mind without the consent of the other party, right?

Did I miss something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I understand the law it allows for verbal contracts not verbal ageements. The contract itself will have agreements but in essence a contract is a contractual arangment between two or more parties for goods or services to be provided and paid for in the manner that the contract defines. I am not a lawyer so I am unable to define this in legal terms. There is no contract between the customer and store owner to enter the store. You may wish to purchase an item you may not. You may allow the secrity guard to search you bag you may not. It makes no difference if you agreed before entering the store. If you tell the guard that you will not allow a bag search the guard can prevent your entry into the store. But he does not have the right to search your bag without your permission and you have the right to change your mind. Period. No matter what you said.

Did you miss something??

Yes you did. Your rights to privacy take precedent over unfounded suspicion. Hope this is clear.

Ride safe. Ride hard Stay sharp.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Next time you are asked to open your bag try a little self respect. It realy is good for personal development.

Skyryder
Self respect?? Good grief what are you on about?? Personal development?? How the hell does refusing to allow a security guard to look in a bag contribute to personal development??

If you are so offended by it then don't go shopping with a bag, problem solved and you can personally develop in other ways if thats what you are into. Take up yoga or something.

What happened to the original topic here about ID cards?? How does any of this crap relate to motor bikes?

While I'm at it who the hell killed JR? I never managed to figure that crap out either.

[Marmoot]

Your rights to privacy take precedent over unfounded suspicion.

So, in this case someone's right is more important that the other's right.
(i.e., someone's Privace right is more important that someone else's Security right).
But then, how do we determine which one's right is more important that the other's right?

And, if my privacy right is so over everyone's right, shouldn't I be allowed to open a bank account without giving my information should I desire not to? Or, whatever right the police have to ask me my name and address since my right of privacy preceeds unfounded suspicion? Especially when there is no suspicion but only a routine check?
Then again, what about if I checks into a hotel (like in the original discussion), I do not need to tell them my name if I do not want to, right?

And if we really want to emphasize the rights of privacy, I then would have the right to ask people not to look into my garden when they go past. And I do not have to make tall fence either, since why should I pay up for a right that has been mine since the beginning. The other people should just look away, not me that should build the fence.

Following this trend, it could get out of hand. Surely there is a logical limit to someone's privacy and/or rights?

[Marmoot]

How does any of this crap relate to motor bikes?

Mate, this is in the non-bike-related forum :laugh:

[Skyryder]

So, in this case someone's right is more important that the other's right.
(i.e., someone's Privace right is more important that someone else's Security right).
But then, how do we determine which one's right is more important that the other's right?

And, if my privacy right is so over everyone's right, shouldn't I be allowed to open a bank account without giving my information should I desire not to? Or, whatever right the police have to ask me my name and address since my right of privacy preceeds unfounded suspicion? Especially when there is no suspicion but only a routine check?
Then again, what about if I checks into a hotel (like in the original discussion), I do not need to tell them my name if I do not want to, right?

And if we really want to emphasize the rights of privacy, I then would have the right to ask people not to look into my garden when they go past. And I do not have to make tall fence either, since why should I pay up for a right that has been mine since the beginning. The other people should just look away, not me that should build the fence.

Following this trend, it could get out of hand. Surely there is a logical limit to someone's privacy and/or rights?

I think this thread 'has' got out of hand. Bottom line if you are happy with a stranger wearing a uniform looking into your bag so be it. Your choice.

I pay the government a lot of money money for the various licences that I hold. That is the law. No licence, no drive. Same with my bag. No warrent no search. END OF SUBJECT.