[deathanatos]

> The age of the patron is displayed for every scan, and the ID scanner operator can be alerted if the patron exceeds the minimum or maximum age set by management.

The maximum age.

> If patrons break the rules, then ban them from every venue using PatronScan in North America.

> The Banned Patrons List is shared with every other venue using PatronScan

> PatronScan ID scanners give you live stats about […], the gender distribution, and the average age [of patrons].

Wow. Just … wow.

[shostack]

I wonder what the legality is about barring someone from an establishment based on a maximum age like that.

[morgante]

What exactly is so disturbing about a company digitizing what bouncers have been doing for decades?

[mattnewton]

Bouncers don't typically work for multiple clubs, you can't hack into their brains, they have imperfect memory, etc

This is like asking, what's wrong with state owned security cameras on the streets? It's digitizing what bystanders have been doing for centuries.

[morgante]

Well, I don't see any problem with state owned security cameras.

[type0]

> state owned security cameras

There is a difference between security cameras and surveillance cameras. Surveillance cams are broadcasted somewhere else (maybe even over internet) and stored and reviewed. Security cameras - are for security incidents and shouldn't be broadcasted or footage stored longer than necessary (matter of hours or days depending on location).

Too bad often times these state owned security cameras are actually surveillance cams disguised as innocuous things which they aren't. There is this Will Smith movie "Enemy of the State", it's fiction but our dystopic society is becoming ever more scary.

[deathanatos]

I'm not sure what the bouncers are doing is right, either, though for some reason I'm more comfortable with it. (Which I find to be a really bad answer, frankly: is this just pushing my "comfort" of what I'm willing to put up with too far?)