Desperate Drug Companies Raising Prices On Drugs Still Under Patent

SF Entertainment Commission Says Attending Any Gathering Of 100 Or More People Means You Lose All Privacy Rights

from the how-about-that... dept

Fri, Apr 8th 2011 4:02am — Mike Masnick

Jim Harper points out some ridiculous rules being considered by the San Francisco Entertainment Commission concerning any event that would exceed 100 people. The two key rules:

3. All occupants of the premises shall be ID Scanned (including patrons, promoters, and performers, etc.). ID scanning data shall be maintained on a data storage system for no less than 15 days and shall be made available to local law enforcement upon request.

4. High visibility cameras shall be located at each entrance and exit point of the premises. Said cameras shall maintain a recorded data base for no less than fifteen (15 days) and made available to local law enforcement upon request.

As Harper notes:

The First Amendment right to peaceably assemble takes a big step back when your identity data and appearance are captured for law enforcement to use at whim simply because you showed up.

Of course, this is similar to data retention rules being pushed on online service providers. The reasoning is basically because law enforcement wants it. However, there are all sorts of things that law enforcement wants but which it can't get because it violates our privacy. That's what the 4th Amendment is supposed to be about. But here we have the SF Entertainment Commission pushing rules that suggest that attending an event that has more than 100 people means you've automatically agreed to give up private info to law enforcement.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: gatherings, privacy, san francisco, surveillance

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael Kohne, 8 Apr 2011 @ 4:21am

Internet vs. real life
'They' usually justify on-line invasion of privacy with the mantra 'but it's a computer - it's DIFFERENT' (think of a 4 year old's whine on that last word).

I seriously doubt that this rule would pass the laugh test in front of any judge - it's a clear abridgment of the right to assemble with who we want, when we want. Hopefully the SFEC's lawyers explain that this won't stand in court and they don't adopt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Internet vs. real life
  This will fail if it applies to anything involving church services. They're really good at mobilizing voters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMNTD, 8 Apr 2011 @ 4:22am

awwwww...
I just don't see the reasoning. 10 to 100 could lead to anything, even a normal boring event. IMAGINE THAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 8 Apr 2011 @ 4:33am

Interesting concept, coming out of a state in financial ruin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 4:55am

The future.
All SF gatherings will now resemble an Anon flashmob. (Note: said gatherings may include actual Anon flashmobs.)

Or maybe some sort of Improv Everywhere thing where everyone mills around sporting McLovin' IDs.

Or everyone carries their own videocamera and records law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:07am
  
  Re: The future.
  3rd suggestion is full of win.
  
  The other 2 aren't fail by any means, but #3.. WIN
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anymouse (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: The future.
  I say everyone comes with one of these T-Shirts:
  
  http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/giftsunder20/9f70/
  
  I'm sure we could get one that replaces Father with Freedom.... it would be much more fitting...
  
  Now if everyone was wearing one of these...
  
  http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CRU4418lg.jpg
  
  All the better to make the point... but they still wouldn't get it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:26am

Fine. Let's apply this rule first to:
1. Private gatherings of members of the SFEC, e.g. weddings,f funerals, parties, etc.

2. Any event involving police officers.

3. Any event involving public officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:27am

Why not just implant everyone with RFID chips and require all property owners to install RFID recorders every 20 feet. Better yet, skip the recorders; we'll send the data directly to the government. Microphones should be added to the recording stations so that we can catch any prohibited speech, and so that we can charge anyone listening to music a performance tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AdamBv1 (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:49am
  
  Demolition man come true
  "John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  When that happens my patent-pending Faraday bodysuits� will earn me a fortune!
  
  My prototype is just tinfoil and duct tape.
  
  I haven't actually attempted to patent this, but if somebody ends up using the idea, they'd better pay me for it! You can patent ideas, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  I didn't realise Judge Dredd was an instruction guide.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yeah right, 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:47pm
  
  Re:
  Why bother? Cell phones can do just that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:27am

As the lyrics to "Plastic People", by the Mothers of Invention state:
Take a day and walk around
Watch the Nazi's Run your town
Then go home and check yourself
You think we're singing
'Bout someone else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:37am

First they came for the happy meal toys, and now this...

SF is trying to kill fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:46am

The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
When We the People started allowing the police to do license checks we gave up our 4th amendment rights. Then along came the Patriot Act. In fact, my 4th amendment rights were violated twice in one weekend. First I had my fishing license checked while I was trout fishing and the next day I had my driver's license checked in a road block. If we don't start fighting now, we will lose the rest of our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:00am
  
  Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
  I'd like you to explain how license checks are a violation of the 4th amendment. Just seems a curious statement to make.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:10am
    
    Re: Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
    Agreed. If you are fishing on public land, the game warden, ranger, police etc have every right to check for a valid fishing license. You may not like it, but that is what you signed up for when you applied for it.
    
    It is also illegal to drive without a valid license. Police are authorized to enforce that law. They can use routine traffic stops and documented road blocks to do so.
    
    Neither case is a violation of privacy rights.
    
    Now this case where they require people who are exercising their 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble to show ID and store that information in a database is a violation of our rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
      "Police are authorized to enforce that law."
      
      Are you two serious? It is unreasonable search. They have absolutely no probably cause to believe that I am fishing or driving without a license.
      
      Police are authorized to enforce every law yet they aren't allowed to search your house are they? Jeez, it is no wonder we have lost our 4th amendment right and are close to losing others. Sheeple like you are handing it over with a big smile on your face.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
        > They have absolutely no probably cause to believe
        
        That's because there's no such thing as "probably cause". It's "probable cause".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
      It is also illegal to drive without a valid license.
      
      I do not know where you are but in most of the US it is NOT illegal to drive without a license. It is illegal to drive on public roads with out a license. Big difference. Also in most states a operator's license is not required for farm equipment and construction equipment which is another form of driving.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The 4th ammendment disappeard long ago
        Well, I'll tell you. In the state of Ohio, if you so much as start up a vehicle requiring valid registration, and you don't have a license? They can nab you for 'operating a vehicle without a license.' Doesn't matter if it's on public land or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:05am

Will this include various government/military/corporate meetings as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re:
  Try and tell this when ever the president gets on Airforce one. Last I heard there are about 105 people onboard at any given time.
  What about airline flights? isn't it bad enough we can pictured naked and groped just to go see our loved ones?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  So any time people gather together to work and there are more than 100 employees at work, it's a violation.
  
  Of course it doesn't include the corporations and the government, the law doesn't apply to them like it applies to everyone else. The laws are for the rich by the rich and any attempts for average citizens to gather and possibly influence the legislative process must be closely monitored by the rich.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:05am

Oh and next will be a mandatory 'hour of hate' - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  Two minute hate. Kids these days have no attention span thanks to Twitter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Twitter is not the reason they have no attention span it is just a tool that matched the attention span of the twits.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:07am

If this was in Belgium, maybe we could get Basta to host several dozen coincidentally adjacent events with exactly 100 people each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:07am

But wait (Cake and eating again)
But little mikee, don't you also claim that by stepping out in public anyone has the right to photograph you and do anything they want?

Hell according to you, I don't even have the right to keep pictures of my own property off the net.

So what the hell is the difference between anyone doing anything they want with your picture and your being recorded and IDed in PUBLIC?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:11am
  
  Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
  huge difference between someone taking your picture while in public and the government mandating keeping tabs on groups larger than 100 persons regardless of the reason for the gathering.
  
  if you cant see that you should go back and retake your highsschool civics classes again...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FarSide (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
    I find it amazing that each time something like this is mentioned, there's always a handful of people who can't understand this difference.
    
    I would add that there is also a big difference between the police having on-demand private data, and having to get a court to issue a warrant or subpoena to gather data from the people who did take those public pictures legally.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
      From the write up here on Techdirt, it seems the law as written requests the videos be available by law enforcement request.
      To me, that means they wouldn't have to bother getting a warrant to demand the video of any event - a simple "turn over the tapes" from any officer would suffice.
      That's an enormous difference of burdens.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChrisB (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
      > handful of people who can't understand this difference
      
      I usually don't agree with M.T., but I can't see the difference either. You talk as if it is self evident. Sure, the ID scanning is weird, but videotaping the event? Anyone can video tape public events. The police do it all the time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
        The difference is self-evident. You go out in public and you may be filmed. Whoever it is that films you may or may not turn over those tapes to police if the police ask for it. The filmer may even be part of the police. This law states that you must be filmed, the film must be kept, and the film must be turned over to the police. You do know the difference between may and must right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sean T Henry (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
        For MT's example to be more correct it would need to read:
        
        By stepping out in public it is mandated that one must be photographed and have the pics immediately placed on the net for anyone to do anything they want with it, in PUBLIC!!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michial Thompson, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
    You ASSUME that any of these places would make Law Enforcement actually GET a Warrant for the information. Most won't because either A) they don't understand the law, bor B) They don't want the hassles or expenses.
    
    Most businesses won't hassle with asking for a warrant for things like this because once they receive a legal papers they then end up turning them over to their lawyers for review.
    
    Most if asked today just turn over the tapes anyway, no need for anything more than a simple introduction, display of badge and ask please give us the video tapes for xyz date.
    
    But until you fools stop fighting for the right to take and do whatever you want with my pictures, I am gonna keep supporting your foolish asses being video taped and made available to law enforcement.
    
    You won't have your freedom to take my privacy away while maintaining yours. Care to compromise?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
      But, little michi, does that mean we all have to wear blinders and not look at anyone while we're outside, too? Why the fuck should I have to get your permission to incidentally take your picture? If you get in my way, then your ass is on film. Not my problem. If you've got a problem with that, then you have a possible neurosis that should be medicated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
  But little mikee,
  
  Please quit the name calling . It's really irritating and doesn't do your credibility any good whatsoever. You may think you're mocking Mike - but actually you just revealing your own childish state of mind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sumquy (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:57am
    
    Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
    "Please quit the name calling . It's really irritating and doesn't do your credibility any good whatsoever. You may think you're mocking Mike - but actually you just revealing your own childish state of mind."
    
    in comparison to what? your post? i don't particularly care (within limits) what a commenter chooses to call little mikee, but i do take offense at anonymous cowards who assume the right to determine what is and what is not a "good" post.
    
    if you don't like a post then either ignore it or refute it, but i don't think your attempt to silence another commenter is going to go over well here. it's usually the type of thing we're complaining about in our comments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
      i [sic] don't think your attempt to silence another commenter is going to go over well here.
      Morons deserve to be mocked. Note I'm not immune to this if I continually spout bullshit that's refuted with facts on a regular basis.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
      if you don't like a post then either ignore it or refute it
      
      Refute the phrase "little mikee"? What?
      
      i don't think your attempt to silence another commenter is going to go over well here.
      
      Who's trying to silencing who? Did you respond to the wrong post?
      
      AC: "Using that silly term cheapens your argument."
      SQ: "OMG, STOP TRYIN' TO CENZ0R THE INTARWEBZ!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
      but i do take offense at anonymous cowards who assume the right to determine what is and what is not a "good" post.
      
      Actually it was me - accidentally not logged in.
      I wasn't trying to silence the other commenter - just giving some advice. I don't actually think the remainder of his comments are completely worthless so he would be better off being a little more civil towards Mike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
  "But little mikee"
  
  As soon as I read this statement, I realize the author has the mentality of a 10-year-old and has nothing to add to intelligent discussion of the matter at hand, so I don't even bother to read any further.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:39am

Easier
It would be so much simpler if we just made it treason for any government person to pass a law or to generally violate one's constitutional rights, including police officers following orders.

Instead of officials blindly following rules, make them know and understand the constitution and at least know those few basic laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jenningsthecat (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:41am

"Papers, please!"
If this plan comes into being, it really does seem to be a huge step in the direction of having checkpoints throughout our cities, manned by armed guards, and with a 'trip downtown' for anyone whose documentation isn't in order.

We need to get serious about shaking off this siege mentality our society has bought into, before our freedom disappears entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bye Bye, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:59am
  
  Re: "Papers, please!"
  "...before our freedom disappears entirely."
  
  Too late. The horse has left the barn (or, Elvis has left the building).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
a-dub (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 6:42am

But its for our own protection...its for our security and peace of mind. If it makes us 'safer', it must be good. The day has come where we must give up some of our freedoms for the sake of our safety. Only the government and law enforcement can protect us from ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theskyrider, 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:07am

But....
But...But...Security!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed Allen, 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:09am

Does this include sports events ?
I can imagine what a circus the recording and checking of thousands of IDs at 49ers game would be.

So if they are "exempt" I would imagine getting this tossed out would become fairly easy and if not the entire world could point out to SF citizens how stupid their politicians are.

Any politician supporting this would know instantly that this is a career ender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: Does this include sports events ?
  Any politician supporting this should know instantly that this is a career ender.
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 7:34am

So..
Just picture them trying to get IDs from everyone going to a movie. And what about children who have no ID? Are we going to require 3 year olds to have a scannable ID?

Law Enforcement in the U.S. is trying really hard to move us to a controlled police state where you have to show scannable ID every time you do something and produce it any time a law enforcement officer wants it. Walking down the street? Produce ID or go to jail. Going into church (or mosque)? Produce ID so we can find out if you are a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:20am

By all means, mock away and work to stop this. But follow the link, read the source material and realize that these rules haven't been proposed by the Entertainment Commission. Instead, "these rules may cover the proposed permit conditions, summarized below, presented by the San Francisco Police Department for consideration by the Entertainment Commission."

So it's the police department's wish list. Probably not unlike wish lists that they draw up every day. Thankfully, police don't make the laws, they only enforce them.

If adopted, it's a complete joke. But right now, it's nothing more than a police department's attempt to move closer to a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:55am

So I guess it's up to the Second Amendment to defend the rest of the amendments. Because they are not gonna defend themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:01pm

How to earse magnetic strip data
http://www.ehow.com/how_7548712_erase-magnetic-strip-key-card.html

(posted anonymously, obviously...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:26pm

Does this mean that it's okay for me to go to a Giants game, videorecord it, and broadcast it? After all, it was a public event, right. Just like if I was recording the happenings in the middle of a busy traffic intersection, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike, 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:40pm

Stupid Boomers. I can't wait until that useless generation starts dying off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:53am
  
  Re:
  And your generation's net contribution to the advancement of society was...................? Yeah, I knew that, and so does everyone else. Your turn to start dying will come soon enough, and will likely be applauded by your own children. Hell, by then, they may also be giving you some "assistance", if you know what I mean. What generation are you anyway? Let me guess. The Generalization Generation? Sounds about right to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]