NationStates Jolt Archive

From my thread about selling alcohol, I remembered a point. In my job, we get test purchases, to check we don't sell alcohol and things to minors. Now, the police want to record everyone who works in retail's DNA and fingerprints, so that if we DO fail a test purchase, they can put it on our criminal record. I find this disgusting, and luckily, my company is fighting it - but some shops are already enforcing it. What do you lot think? A breach of human rights, or a reasonable precaution?

Only thing I can think of 'Police State'.

From my thread about selling alcohol, I remembered a point. In my job, we get test purchases, to check we don't sell alcohol and things to minors. Now, the police want to record everyone who works in retail's DNA and fingerprints, so that if we DO fail a test purchase, they can put it on our criminal record. I find this disgusting, and luckily, my company is fighting it - but some shops are already enforcing it. What do you lot think? A breach of human rights, or a reasonable precaution?

I think it's deplorable.
Do I feel that people (under 18) should be prevented from buying alcohol? Yes.
Do I think that people who work at stores that sell liquor should ALWAYS check ID? Yes.
Do I feel that sting operations and DNA/fingerprint cataloguing are a reasonable and ethical method of enforcing these rules? No. Hell no, and no way.

I mean, should people who work behind the counter at Quick Check and 7-11 have to have their DNA and fingerprints on file for Cigarette sales? No, didn't f-ing think so.

From my thread about selling alcohol, I remembered a point. In my job, we get test purchases, to check we don't sell alcohol and things to minors. Now, the police want to record everyone who works in retail's DNA and fingerprints, so that if we DO fail a test purchase, they can put it on our criminal record. I find this disgusting, and luckily, my company is fighting it - but some shops are already enforcing it. What do you lot think? A breach of human rights, or a reasonable precaution?

Test purchase operations I support, you (or whomever is selling) should know better than to sell to a minor.
DNA and fingerprinting, no.

From my thread about selling alcohol, I remembered a point. In my job, we get test purchases, to check we don't sell alcohol and things to minors. Now, the police want to record everyone who works in retail's DNA and fingerprints, so that if we DO fail a test purchase, they can put it on our criminal record. I find this disgusting, and luckily, my company is fighting it - but some shops are already enforcing it. What do you lot think? A breach of human rights, or a reasonable precaution?

That's ga- er, dumbass.

The clerk's job is to check ID to make sure that the person is not a minor. If the person using the card is a minor and has a fake ID, that is not the clerk's problem. There are different forms of ID and people will get around the system.

There are people who will have friends who are old enough buy it for them. I fail to see what this system would achieve.

Just because a clerk can't tell if an ID is fake, what does that mean, that he's going to doubt everyone?

That being said, test purchases are perfectly fine. They are not a breech of anyone's rights, as they are working within in the law and they are using an undercover client to ensure that stores follow the law. DNA and fingerprints smack of police state tactics.

The clerk's job is to check ID to make sure that the person is not a minor. If the person using the card is a minor and has a fake ID, that is not the clerk's problem. There are different forms of ID and people will get around the system.

There are people who will have friends who are old enough buy it for them. I fail to see what this system would achieve.

Just because a clerk can't tell if an ID is fake, what does that mean, that he's going to doubt everyone?
The police operations mentioned in the OP use minors without ID. The clerk is supposed to check the ID, at which point the minor has none and so is not served. That's how those operations work, it's got nothing to do with fake ID's (though where I live anyone found with a fake ID is now going to be prosecuted for fraud).

The clerk's job is to check ID to make sure that the person is not a minor. If the person using the card is a minor and has a fake ID, that is not the clerk's problem. There are different forms of ID and people will get around the system.

There are people who will have friends who are old enough buy it for them. I fail to see what this system would achieve.

Just because a clerk can't tell if an ID is fake, what does that mean, that he's going to doubt everyone?

I think what they're trying to stop is carelessness or open contempt for the law in selling to minors, not whether or not you can tell the difference between valid and fake ID. However, fingerprinting and DNA-recording is STILL extreme.

Like I said in the other thread, it sucks that the police don't have their priorities straight.

And, like I said in the other thread, they do hence the overall reductions in crime.

Like I said in the other thread, it sucks that the police don't have their priorities straight.

And, like I said in the other thread, they do hence the overall reductions in crime.

And, like Utracia stated in the other thread, statistics show that that's rubbish.

I do not believe this.I do not believe this. Seriously: WTF?

This is a total waste of police time.

"real criminals"? :rolleyes: selling alcohol to minors is a crime, and those that do it are criminals. It's the state that decides that, not you.

I can see the pros and cons of this situation...

Does your register identify the person selling the item?

if alcohol is sold to a minor (usually caught after the fact) Do you want the appropriate seller punished or would you rather everyone get blamed/fined/punished?

normally, the bottle isn't wiped off after the purchase is made, so the seller's fingerprints and perhaps other genetic samples may be present. so that would help police pinpoint who exactly broke the law. (it's also solid evidence.)

but I also see the point about fingerprinting and DNA collection being a bit... overprotective

so the question is, which do you preferre. the entire store being fined, and every employee punished for the actions/carelessness of one person. or your Fingerprints and/or DNA on file in hopes that the information is not abused.

Seems like an awful lot of work to me. I f you are going to be charged with a crime..police take fingerprints anyways. Why waste money and time on doing it on everybody beforehand?

DNA testing I just don't get why they would do that at all.
Unless of course police think that if you sell to a minor that someday down the road you will turn into a homicidal maniac.