Re: Challenge to Hospitality: The ID Check in the Lobby

That's ridiculous. In that case, I would have pulled out my mobile

> phone, called the hotel, and asked to speak to the guest.

Yes, you could've done that.

Of course, any ID check where they aren't checking the ID against a > list of known good or bad people is completely pointless anyway. And > as we've seen with the TSA no-fly list, even if they do have a list, > that often doesn't help.

That is not the only purpose for checking ID and recording those who come in.

From the point of view of the hotel mgmt, the ID check serves as a way to legally keep undesirables -- homeless and criminals -- out of the hotel. Frankly, in NYC it is in the interest of the hotel and its guests to do so.

If the hotel attempted to eject a homeless person sitting quietly it could get into discrimination trouble. Most homeless people either do not have IDs or wish to be challenged, so this helps keeps them out.

A criminal might have ID, but obviously would not want a record of his or her presence made. Again, this check helps keep them out.

I d> "NOT a public place" would imply that the no-smoking ban in NY is a crock.

I have no idea what the terms are of no-smoking ban which is a different issue. But any property owner may ban smoking on their own property if they so choose. The govt for many years has banned smoking in some places, such as the inside of a transit bus.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A 'public place' is wherever police > decide it is. If someone has a thing against another person smoking > somewhere, I am sure they will be able to find a judge to agree with > them if they look for awhile. PAT]

In this context, my usage of "public place" was a public sidewalk vs. the interior of private property. Once you leave the public sidewalk the laws and rules governing behavior differ.

Some private property, such as a store or restaurant, is defined as a place of public accomodation and there are laws regarding the rights and responsibilities of the owners of such places. The most obvious example is prohibiting racial discrimination. However, beyond certain explicit situations, the owners of private spaces may make and enforce their own rules (e.g. dress codes and conduct.) A supermarket theorectically could require every shopper to register before entry; they don't because there's no need to and it would discourage business.

However, some very high end stores do do that for protection.

I note all of this because while we may be offended by this photo ID requirement, it is the owner's right to do so. There are two important points to remember: 1) why has the owner been forced to take the expense to require IDs and 2) many people think "big brother" watching us is the government; we forget the private sector does it extensively.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I could never understand is how stores such as Walmart on the one hand want to encourage shoppers (although I do not personally care for the chain) yet on the other hand they can claim that someone is 'tresspassing' if the person comes in their store. Ditto with public transit. If it is a public place, which is claimed, then how can a member of the public who chooses to go inside or upon the property of the store or the transit agency get arrested by police for trespassing? Yet CTA does that all time; so does Walmart. Seems to me like Walmart and transit agency want to have things both ways at the same time. PAT]
Reply to
hancock4
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.