So used to the demands of those in authority have the latest generation become, that “no” seems to be a word going rapidly out of fashion. Okay, so when I was going to clubs, we didn’t have smart phones – indeed we didn’t have mobile phones at all (it was draughty living in caves) and we certainly didn’t have Facebook, so bouncers couldn’t demand that which hadn’t yet been invented.
These days, however…
Some bouncers have been demanding people hand over their smartphones so they can check Facebook accounts, Newsbeat has been told.
There is only one reasonable and rational response to such a demand and the second word is “off”. Yet we enable this behaviour with meek compliance. If someone on a door demanded to see my Facebook account, they would have difficulty seeing that which does not exist. Certainly I would not hand over my phone with all of its sensitive contact details to a complete stranger. I’m horrified not only that these people are presuming to make the demand in the first place, but that people comply.
Their excuse, apparently is so that they can verify the identity of the individual. Yeah, that’s why they ask for photo IDs – y’know, so that they can look at the image and at the person proffering it and make a comparison. Jeebus!
Charlotte, who’s from Southampton, said she often gets asked for identification.
“I just think great, ‘Here we go again, they’re going to question me, they’re going to ask my date of birth, my star sign, and they’re going to ask to see a different ID or something.’”
“I do understand why they want to verify it, but at the same time if you’ve got an ID in front of you, why isn’t that good enough?”
It must be a pain for youngsters today having to produce ID at every tip and turn. However, to answer Charlotte’s question, the ID proffered, providing it is one of the standard ones (Citizen card etc.,) is good enough and when asked to hand over her phone, she should say “no” very firmly and mean it. Being prepared to walk away if necessary.
Anyway, the last word has to go to the bouncer from Worthing who demonstrates magnificently the mentality needed for the role:
“Why is it so wrong for people to have to prove the ID is actually them? If you’re not doing anything wrong you shouldn’t have a problem.”
Yup, you guessed it right; nothing to hide, nothing to fear, that age old canard trotted out by the hard of thinking every time civil liberties crop up. At which point they lose all credibility.
What would these bouncers do if you do not have a facebook account? Refuse entry? Sounds like a place I wouldn’t care to go and spend money in.
I suspect that will lead to a “does not compute” response. Everyone has a Facebook account…
Not me!
But then…if they’ve got fake ID it’s the matter of second to set up fake Facebook, isn’t it?
Does not compute!
…Not me, never had one, never want one. I do value what little privacy I’m given by the state.
That’d be me busted then. All my social network accounts are in this online pseudonym, not that they’d get as far as seeing them on my phone anyway.
I think the future will be so full of unquestioning drones that anyone with a feisty nature, and healthy cynicism towards authority, will prosper very well. That’s why I’m teaching my kids to question everything and stand up for themselves, though it’s sometimes difficult slicing through the brainwashing inflicted on them (indirectly by government) at school.
“cynicism towards authority, will prosper very well”
During the periods when they aren’t in prison presumably, although I do agree that anyone with an independent mind should have a built in advantage.
My Facebook account does not contain a picture of me – but what’s with an ID needing to be checked to make sure that it is the person? Isn’t that what an ID does!
In prison? Anyone of an independent mindset should realise there is compliance and just enough compliance to sidestep these bureaucratic little inconveniences. Putting a screen lock on your phone might be a good idea, or simply stating politely “Don’t have that app, guv. Didn’t think it was compulsory.”
If I was a licensed premises owner I would demand that my door staff made damn sure that no-one got in under age, because the consequences for me could be very costly. If that means turning people away because they looked under age despite having ‘valid’ ID, or demanding other methods of verification, then so be it. I doubt that you’d get much change from the licensing authorities if under age drinkers were found in your establishment, and you claimed they had ID, which turned out to be fake. Every teenager I know has fake ID. You can get it off the internet for Gods sake.
At the end of the day, these are privately run pubs and clubs. If people don’t like whatever ID policies are in place, then they should leave and go elsewhere. No-one is forced to go into a bar. Its an entirely voluntary act, and if you are refused entry, its not an infringement of your ‘human rights’.
I haven’t said anything that contradicts this. Refusing entry is ok. Demanding access to private and personal information and property deserves a robust refusal. More people need to learn to do it. If publicans started losing business as a consequence they will get the message.
Well the door staff are perfectly entitled to ask to see Facebook if they want to. There’s no law against it. I can go up to people on the street and ask them to see their Facebook if I wanted, and they would tell me f*ck off. Both of us being entirely free to do so.
If customers don’t like that go elsewhere. Don’t complain ‘I had to show my Facebook to get in’ when you could have just walked away. The showing of Facebook was ENTIRELY voluntary. How can you complain about a voluntary act?
Again, nothing I have said, contradicts this. However, the property rights of the publican do not trump the property rights of the person seeking entry.
If the doorman cannot tell a forgery when he sees one, then that is the failure on the part of the publican to provide adequate training and supervision – so any failures resulting in a prosecution get no sympathy from me, frankly. Train your staff properly or suffer the consequences.
It is perfectly fine to refuse entry if there is a problem. It is also perfectly reasonable to ask for an alternative. It is not okay to demand access to private property. Ever.
It is time people stood up to the bullies that do it. To do otherwise is to let them soften us up for even more of this insidious behaviour – much like the bar that micro-chipped their customers.
If any doorman demanded access to my phone, they would be told very firmly where they could put their demand and I would walk away – as mentioned in the post. I would also spread the word as widely as I could so as to do as much damage as possible to the publican concerned.
Publicans and their door staff do not have the right to demand that people hand over private property and to have access to an account that may well also be private. I would also point out that it contravenes the industry’s own code of practice.
So, no, not okay. And, yes, we should vigorously stand up to the arseholes that try it on.
Freedom of speech. Even if they decided to go along with it at the time, they have every right to complain about poor customer service after the act. And well done to those who have done so.
Block wardens everywhere.
Growth industry.
Not having any Farcebook or other accounts I find the whole thing incredible. There is a press report today of a headteacher threatening to “shop” parents to social services if their under 13 kids have accounts – this is against FB rules, in any case. So how does a bouncer looking at a potential customers smartphone prove anything?
It doesn’t.
Can we assume from that that his school has world-class OFSTED ratings, no discipline problems, tip-top buildings and no issues with staff?
If not, get on with solving those issues, chum! That’s what you’re paid for, not to meddle in what children do out of hours. That’s the responsibility of their parents.
I must admit I do have an issue with the Big Brother Watch quote though…
Nick Pickles, from the campaign group Big Brother Watch, said he was against the idea of checking Facebook accounts.
“Not only is it ridiculous from a security point of view, it’s an affront to the basic rights of people to be able to live their lives in private,” he said.
Erm live their lives in private…on Facebook?
Not all Facebook accounts are publicly viewable and you cannot assume that they will be when demanding access. Also, the phone contains personal and confidential information in the contacts and possibly email accounts. So, yes, I agree with the quote.
Frankly any bouncer who demanded that I hand over my phone would be advised where, precisely, they could insert their own handset. We need to start saying “no” to these jumped up little jobsworths at every opportunity until they get the message that their authority over us is zero.
That said, I wouldn’t dream of going into an establishment that felt it necessary to use bouncers in the first place, but that’s another story.
There is only one reasonable and rational response to such a demand and the second word is “off”.
Alternatively, Arkell v Pressdram.