• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    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@sh.itjust.works
      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@sh.itjust.works
        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).