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

[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]


Your purpose in being on private or public property must be consistent with the express or implied invitation of the properties owners. It makes perfect sense to me that a mall would not want skateboarders turning there property into a skateboarding park. When a juvenile skateboarder breaks their arm the parents may allege attractive nuisance. Clearly posted signs and active enforcement of the owners right to exclude that activity can serve as a strong element of the property owners defense against such a claim for damages. In the case of Walmart; or Mall wart as I unlovingly call them; any activity on the premise that detracts from the shopping experience of other shoppers is directly contrary to their ownership rights. I don't shop Walmart because I believe they use their market power in predatory and anticompetitive ways. That does not mean I would want to loose that choice because various pressure groups want to be able to harass them out of business by picketing and obstructing perfectly legal commercial activity.

My least favorite misunderstanding of property rights is the difference between public ownership and public access. I'm a firefighter / rescuer by avocation. Many times I've had to turn down demands for access to fire stations by members of the public who demand access to the toilets or the apparatus bays on the grounds that "it is a public building." It has not happened often but we have sometimes needed police assistance to have belligerent citizens removed.

You have no more right to use the toilet in a firehouse than you do to borrow one of the tankers quartered there to fill your swimming pool or water your lawn. The real kicker in the case of many volunteer fire stations in the US is that they are not publicly owned at all. They are often owned fee simple by a private corporation that is organized under state charter to provide a public service. So when someone tries to push past me at the door to my firehouse, after being denied access to the toilets that are located in locker rooms that are not open to anyone other than fire and rescue personnel, they are committing a number of crimes including assault on a public safety worker to deter the performance of their duty. You see one of our duties is to secure the station and it's contents from any unauthorized access.

The same pr> David wrote:

> The advantage of the passport is that it does not have address. It >> also does not have SSN (or a key that is easily cross-referenced to >> SSN). > For simple ID in cases like this the passport will work. But to say > open a bank account I wonder if banks will accept a document that does > not have an address and a key number. In other words, when they ask > for your license, they record that key number and your address. >> You can have a driver's license and a passport (I don't believe >> you're really allowed to have the license and the non-license ID). > True. I wanted to get a non driver's ID card for this very reason; > plus I wanted to keep my driver's history separate. In other words, > if a cop stops me while walking down the street, he has no need to see > my driver's license, just some official ID. (A passport would be > useful, unless he wanted an official address as well.) But you're > only allowed to get a non driver's ID if you can't drive. They appear > to be rather fussy about giving them out. >> I'll use my passport when I know I'm going to need specific ID (new >> job, getting a mortgage, etc.). > My only concern would be losing your passport. Is it hard to replace > if lost or stolen?

For that reason when I traveled internationally I would have the US embassy in the destination country notarize a true attest copy of my Passport so that I could leave the original in the hotel safe. The reason I had it done at the destination embassy is that they new the local procedures and would do it in the form that the locals would recognize. That being said some places will except nothing but the original. I once had to find a different hotel when the hotel I had reservations with insisted that they needed to hold my passport as surety for my payment. I was not willing to have the passport out of my control in that particular country.

-- Tom Horne

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" Benjamin Franklin

Reply to
Thomas Daniel Horne
Loading thread data ... 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.