“Its website lists six behaviors customers can be flagged for: violence, assault, destruction of property, sexual assault, fraud, and theft.”
Seems like they’re missing an “overconsume” flag. If you ever had to cut someone off, that should be noted. 6 drink maximum or whatever.
Yeah, I’m half surprised there isn’t “under consume” on the list and they stop letting people in who don’t spend enough money
Why would a system meant to maximize the profit of the bar block out their best customers?
They only want to block fighters and predators because it hurts business, not for any moral reasons.
Honestly, I spent a lot of years tending bar, and most of the time, if someone was too drunk, it was my fault. Sure, there were times when someone was pre-gaming too hard or snuck in alcohol, but 9 times out of 10, if someone overconsumed, it was because I overserved.
I commented elsewhere about this but it’s entirely dependent on the type of bar and event. That data will be used for holding bartenders who “overserve” liable for someone else’s behavior and there’s so many scenarios where you have no idea who has drank the correct amount.
Imagine working an event — a concert or wedding or anything like that — and some jackass manages to get too drunk. That should be on them but America is the most litigious society on Earth. There’s no way the bar and bartender won’t ever be sued and this data subpoenaed.
That’s very true, although I think it’ll be unlikely that an individual bartender will get blamed for overserving in a large venue. I worked at a relatively small venue (280 at capacity) and on a busy night it would be difficult to tell you who served an individual customer, much less who gave him the drink that, “overserved,” them.
As someone in New Orleans who has bartended and done many other service industry jobs, eat pant. That will definitely be used in shittier cities to arrest/sue bartenders who “overserve” someone who then leaves and gets in trouble.
It’s basically impossible to keep track of every customer at crowded bars when you’re working your ass off, people buy rounds for each other, you’re worried about stocking the bar, cleaning glasses, etc. Imagine working at a music venue and being slammed for 3 or 4 hours for tips and then some ass gets you sued, fined, or arrested because you didn’t manage to remember every single person at the show.
From the article:
Patronscan previously had a system flag for “substance abuse,” but this flag was removed in 2019, according to Mlikotin. Its privacy policy notes a California law that limits its flags to “fraud, abuse, and material representation.”
Possibly controversial opinion, but this sounds reasonable. The flags they can put on customers are, “violence, assault, destruction of property, sexual assault, fraud, and theft.” Those aren’t petty gripes like, “rude,” or, “poor tipper.” I was bar staff for a while, and I’d have wanted to know if the guy I was serving got violent the last time he went out.
That being said, I could see how this system could be abused. If one power-tripping bouncer claims you sexually assaulted someone, and no one will serve you anymore, that’s bullshit. Some regulations around how businesses use these databases would be good.
Yes totally reasonable some corpos and business get to claim you are a criminal and impose de facto penalties on you.
Your email app will give your messages to other companies, your navigation app will share your exact location with marketers, and your dating app will sell your sexual preferences to the highest bidder, but sure, bars having a way to warn each other which costumers tried to assault a waitress is a bridge to far.
You presume much about what services I use. There is much to be said about the power private corps have over us, the complications of being unable or unwilling to use their services making you a de facto outsider.
I don’t see how these wrongs make another right.
Some of the actions alleged are actual crimes. It is a bad idea to have them handle para-legally. Sure being excluded from visiting bars is a light punishment (for someone actually guilty, completely unfair for an innocent person) but nothing guarantees it will stay there and won’t also be used leaked to prospective employers and other people. In fact the first time you get denied you could very well not be alone and have to convince people you are not a rapist or something.
It’s exactly the sort of information you not want bartenders and bouncers conjuring and trading in.
For anyone like this to be a good thing there needs to be a system of checks and balances. There should be an appeal process that is low effort and low or zero cost. There should also be a verification process by a third party before anything can be added.
Yeah, and a lot of this will depend on how it’s used. If I were still in the service industry and I saw that a guy had been to 20 bars in the last year, and I saw he got flagged at one for violence, I would think, “Well, this doesn’t seem to be a pattern of behavior, maybe he wasn’t the instigator, I’ll keep an eye on him but I’m not too worried.” But I could see a lot of larger places, like clubs, who aren’t hurting for business, just rejecting people who are flagged out of hand. The information seems objectively good to have, but the application could be really problematic.
Well… If you want to fight this, don’t go to these places. Deny them profit.
Otherwise it will go mainstream.
Similar thing with extra fees at restaurants. In my area most dropped them after consumer bakc lash.
Going to a bar is 100% luxury, you will 100% fine to avoid it.
Dont feed this corpo behaviour. Fuck em.
Find that local hood dive with a bartender who knows how to manage a shop. Support them, they are dying.
Fuck no you can’t take my picture to share with 2000 other establishments to see if I’ve been a bad boy. That’s an easy way to ensure I just don’t hang out in your bar.
Good, I’d rather not have you in my bar if your behavior is such that you’re worried about not being able to get in my bar.
Except now the bars can easily sell my data to corps without my goddamn permission. It isn’t about having things to hide. It’s about resonable privacy. According to the article, the company can track VIPs and “big spenders” and treat them differently. They can also deny you entry on “potential” risks. I wonder what systems they use to determine a denial of entry.
It’s all self-reported. For example, if they don’t like how much you tipped, they can flag you. It’s all subjective.
You may not have read that right. I don’t think they are saying that it’s their behavior that is the reason that they won’t enter, it’s the fact that you are using a partner that makes digital copies and photographs patrons. It’s a huge invasion of privacy. It’s one thing for security cameras, it’s a whole different level to also be copying ID’s AND then also sharing that information to parties outside the establishment.
fully agree, I barely go to bars in the first place, I’m the quiet guy that orders and just hangs out and have a good time, but like I would never enter an establishment where a copy of my ID is required to enter, and that’s ignoring the fact that it’s doing photography at the same time. Would be an instant next bar please.
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.
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.
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.
