Safeway Scanning Drivers' Licenses [Archive]

daynurse

03-17-2010, 08:18 PM

I found this on the Press Democrat blog for Petaluma 360. This has such far-reaching implications. Those scans will most likely be available for subpoena. It's frightening.

Peggy

Safeway Now Scanning Drivers Licenses! (https://forum.petaluma360.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52&sid=8e89d7abe947f121c033b35bbd1f0560#p280)

https://forum.petaluma360.com/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://forum.petaluma360.com/viewtopic.php?p=280#p280)by PINS (https://forum.petaluma360.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11886) » Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:47 am
Are You Ready & Willing To Have Your License Scanned At Safeway?

As we were checking out at the Petaluma Safeway (full load of groceries) I was asked to give them my driver's license so they could scan it to verify my age before they would sell me the bottle of wine in the cart. (I'm 65)

I was told they are doing it for everybody--regardless of obvious apparent age.

That certainly appears to be the case. In checking with a neighbor, I was told that they saw a Safeway clerk make a 90 yr old women produce her driver's license.

Another neighbor (Age 57) said he simply refused to allow them to scan it. They sold him the wine anyhow.

I can understand the need to verify age, but people who are obviously well over 21 should not have to endure this. I suppose that it is impossible these days to hire people capable of using judgment--hence the Safeway rule that EVERYONE must have their license scanned--even if they are obviously well past 50 and using a cane.

However, it should be sufficient to merely show the license. By allowing them to scan your card, you are building a data base for Safeway.

This time I allowed them to scan my license--my only excuse is that I was in a partial state of shock. That won't happen again. The next Safeway shopping trip could get interesting.

I've written to Safeway management and depending upon their reply I may initiate a new blog series on Petaluma 360.

justme

03-18-2010, 09:50 AM

They do it to verify it's not a false id..... Why not just scan it? They got your debit card info anyway? Why hassle the poor clerks for a state, federal and local guideline? To make a point?

Oh God.. The conspiracy, let's control your lives shit again.... Geez... You probably give the same info every time you use your cell phone.... aka..location etc.

You were in a state of shock and couldn't think? Wow.....

OK done with this thread......:hmmm:

I found this on the Press Democrat blog for Petaluma 360. This has such far-reaching implications. Those scans will most likely be available for subpoena. It's frightening.

Peggy

Safeway Now Scanning Drivers Licenses! (https://forum.petaluma360.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52&sid=8e89d7abe947f121c033b35bbd1f0560#p280)

https://forum.petaluma360.com/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://forum.petaluma360.com/viewtopic.php?p=280#p280)by PINS (https://forum.petaluma360.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11886) » Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:47 am
Are You Ready & Willing To Have Your License Scanned At Safeway?

WeAreLove

03-18-2010, 12:39 PM

Sorry, I have alittle more sympathy for daynurse. They won't be scanning my drivers license, they don't have my debit card and I don't have a club card. Actually I have a club card but I don't use it.

I too am disgusted by this invasion of privacy. There is no rationale for carding a 65 year old woman.

If they want my money, they can take it without tracking who I am. Period.

The most benign reason for this is more effective advertising, which I couldn't care less about, and there's plenty of potential abuses to having our every move tracked by corporations.

daynurse

03-18-2010, 01:16 PM

Just for clarification. It was not me who went into Safeway (I just don't do that). I was quoting, with attribution, someone else's experience. I think it's important for others to have a heads-up before they experience this.

The point the gentleman made when posting to 360 was that you don't have
to divulge information just because someone asks you to.

Now back to this beautiful day!

Peggy

Sorry, I have alittle more sympathy for daynurse. They won't be scanning my drivers license, they don't have my debit card and I don't have a club card. Actually I have a club card but I don't use it.

n4rky

03-18-2010, 08:53 PM

Oh God.. The conspiracy, let's control your lives shit again.... Geez... You probably give the same info every time you use your cell phone.... aka..location etc.

I would suggest a few books:
Naomi Wolf, The End of America
Joe Conason, It Can Happen Here
Amy Goodman & David Goodman, Standing Up to the Madness

History tells us why it is important and why the United States is looking more and more like an unsavory regime. But I guess you can't be bothered even with the Nazi takeover of Germany, the Fascist takeover of Italy, or even the increased intrusions into privacy in putatively communist countries, let alone how those increasingly resemble the United States of the 21st Century.

But I guess you believe in U.S. exceptionalism, that the U.S. can do abhorrent things without becoming abhorrent itself. A few of us, who are a little better read, understand why that's untenable.

justme

03-18-2010, 09:06 PM

I would suggest a few books:
Naomi Wolf, The End of America
Joe Conason, It Can Happen Here
Amy Goodman & David Goodman, Standing Up to the Madness

History tells us why it is important and why the United States is looking more and more like an unsavory regime. But I guess you can't be bothered even with the Nazi takeover of Germany, the Fascist takeover of Italy, or even the increased intrusions into privacy in putatively communist countries.

Oh boy, here come the personal attacks again. I am bothered by the above, but I don't let them take full control of my everyday life or use them to insult others. Hmmmm putative. As in alleged or commonly thought?

All this because a store scans a driver license to make sure it is valid for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco? Same thing that banks have been doing for years.

WeAreLove

03-18-2010, 09:25 PM

You ridiculed the original poster with several sarcastic posts that you have since deleted, and now you're claiming victimhood? That's laughable.

Stores have no rational reason to card elderly people, and if the 65 year old woman doesn't like it, what business is that of yours? Who are you to be ridiculing her?

Oh boy, here come the personal attacks again. I am bothered by the above, but I don't let them take full control of my everyday life or use them to insult others. Hmmmm putative. As in alleged or commonly thought?

All this because a store scans a driver license to make sure it is valid for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco? Same thing that banks have been doing for years.

justme

03-18-2010, 09:59 PM

You ridiculed the original poster with several sarcastic posts that you have since deleted, and now you're claiming victimhood? That's laughable.

Stores have no rational reason to card elderly people, and if the 65 year old woman doesn't like it, what business is that of yours? Who are you to be ridiculing her?

Yes, I did post some sarcastic posts, then I deleted them since I saw that was not the way to comment. You ever make a mistake? And no, I am not claiming to be a victim because I haven't been hurt or injured in any way.

It's my business because this is an open forum where we can comment on what we want to, in agreement or disagreement, "we are love"..

Who are you to ridicule me?

justme

03-18-2010, 10:09 PM

Anyway, all insults aside. Has anyone contacted Safeway and asked them why they scan drivers licenses or try to?

Just curious what their response would be.

WeAreLove

03-18-2010, 10:10 PM

So, tell us why you think elderly people are required to show ID to buy alcohol, and why should you care if they refuse?

Yes, I did post some sarcastic posts, then I deleted them since I saw that was not the way to comment. You ever make a mistake? And no, I am not claiming to be a victim because I haven't been hurt or injured in any way.

It's my business because this is an open forum where we can comment on what we want to, in agreement or disagreement, "we are love"..

Who are you to ridicule me?

justme

03-18-2010, 10:20 PM

So, tell us why you think elderly people are required to show ID to buy alcohol, and why should you care if they refuse?

Well first I NEVER said elderly people should be required to show ID and I don't think they should. And I NEVER said anything against ANYONE refusing to show their ID. I simply stated why I thought the store may be asking people to. I don't think I agreed with the policy anywhere did I?

WeAreLove

03-18-2010, 10:28 PM

Yes, you did, and I quote "Why hassle the poor clerks for a state, federal and local guideline? To make a point?"

What state, federal and local guideline? Looks like you just made this up to be obnoxious.

Well first I NEVER said elderly people should be required to show ID and I don't think they should. And I NEVER said anything against ANYONE refusing to show their ID. I simply stated why I thought the store may be asking people to. I don't think I agreed with the policy anywhere did I?

justme

03-18-2010, 10:37 PM

Yes, you did, and I quote "Why hassle the poor clerks for a state, federal and local guideline? To make a point?"

What state, federal and local guideline? Looks like you just made this up to be obnoxious.

No I didn't. I just listed some reasons they might be asking. Local guideline can be corporate or store level too. And I stand by the statement why hassle the clerks. Not their decision.

You are assuming I was trying to be obnoxious which I wasn't.

Mr. Quik

03-18-2010, 10:39 PM

Long's Drug did this same thing in the mid 2000's and it failed miserably. They had so many complaints they elected to stop. There were also accusations of Identity theft.

You should be concerned about surrendering your drivers license to someone for several reasons. Your private information is information that can be used for much more than data-basing and submittion to the personal-profile national database (see Experian.com). This information helps the depositories help to determine who you are and your buying patterns. Therefore, they can offer you coupons that target your needs - your consumer profile.

And understand that while we can think we trust that person at the cash register, it's not always so. Some cashiers (not directed at Safeway) have their own portable scanners and will scan your card and drivers license to a base they can sell - for ID theft. Because of this, it's against the law to handle a persons I.D., credit or debit card out of the sight of it's owner in Texas. The bottom line: can you be guaranteed the info will remain safe and private? No!.

And how many times in the last year alone have we read where someone lost their laptop, the one that had all the customer's private info on them.

The more information you allow to be released into the social mainstream, the more likely you have of an identity theft.

I've done a recent story on this very thing on CNNRadio and CBS stations. It's about the facts and only the facts.

WeAreLove

03-18-2010, 10:41 PM

For God's sake, don't be such a weasel. When you're called on something, either admit it or defend it with some proof.

You asserted the clerks are following "state and federal guidelines", I'm calling you on your bullshit.

No I didn't. I just listed some reasons they might be asking. Local guideline can be corporate or store level too. And I stand by the statement why hassle the clerks. Not their decision.

You are assuming I was trying to be obnoxious which I wasn't.

Barry

03-18-2010, 10:58 PM

WeAreLove and justme: Please drop it!

WeAreLove

03-18-2010, 11:04 PM

WeAreLove and justme: Please drop it!

Please include integrity, intellectual and otherwise, with the local definition of 'conscious'.

Claire

03-19-2010, 12:30 AM

Children, children, take a deep breath and go get a cookie!

I'm ducking now in case you come swinging at me!

We just got our ID scanned at Safeway about an hour ago and it did not feel right. And nobody could ever think I'm near 21 years of age, alas.

n4rky

03-19-2010, 08:27 AM

WeAreLove and justme: Please drop it!

It is well past time that someone called 'justme' out for advocating fascism and then denying having done so. He has done this on numerous occasions and I frankly find it offensive. I applaud 'WeAreLove' for rising to this occasion and second her/his request that integrity should be expected in this forum.

happeemark

03-19-2010, 11:24 AM

PROBLEM SOLVED

STOP SHOPPING & SUPPORTING THE MASSIVE CORPORATE OWNED SUPERMARKETS OF: SAFEWAY, RALEY'S ETC

What reason(s) would anyone want to support these insensitive GREEEEEEEDY corporations with their hard earned $$$$? :hmmm:
The obvious answers are right here in Sonoma County!

SHOP & SUPPORT>>OLIVER'S, ANDY'S, COMMUNITY MARKET & TRADER JOE'S (TJ'S) THIS WILL ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM:thumbsup:

Granted TJ's might appear to be a corporate store, but it's still a PRIVATELY HELD family owned operation:):
In peace & harmony,
Mark

Shandi

03-19-2010, 12:29 PM

Actually, I saw a sign in Olivers yesterday that said everyone will need to show ID regardless of age, when purchasing alcohol. But it didn't indicate scanning.

Claire

03-19-2010, 04:33 PM

I know, I know. What reason could I possibly have for supporting the greedy corporations?? Well, in this case I just wanted a glass of wine after a very long day and it was after 10 pm. Mitigating circumstances happen.

PROBLEM SOLVED

STOP SHOPPING & SUPPORTING THE MASSIVE CORPORATE OWNED SUPERMARKETS OF: SAFEWAY, RALEY'S ETC

What reason(s) would anyone want to support these insensitive GREEEEEEEDY corporations with their hard earned $$$$? :hmmm:
The obvious answers are right here in Sonoma County!
...

justme

03-19-2010, 04:38 PM

Well I emailed Safeway HQ in Phx and asked them about the ID issue... Here is their response emailed to me... They wrote it, not me...

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding asking our customer for identification on alcohol purchases.

"To make sure Safeway is not in any violation of selling alcohol to minors, there is a new procedure in place regarding the purchase of alcohol. Stores are required to ask all customers regardless of age, for their ID to input their DOB into the computer and swipe their drivers license to ensure that this is not misread.

Your feedback is important to us and will be forwarded to the appropriate department for further consideration. Thank you again for taking the time to let us know how we can better serve you.

If you would like to discuss this further or if any of your account information needs updating, please reply to this email or call our toll free number at 1-877-723-3929 and reference contact ID 16420266. One of our associates will be happy to assist you.

We appreciate your business and look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for shopping at Safeway.

Sincerely,

Safeway Customer Service Team"
--Original Message--

"Comments or Questions : At the Sebastopol, Ca, the cashiers are requesting customers to let them scan/slide their driver's licenses. I am curious. Why do they want to scan them, what data are you retrieving and what is the data being used for? "

Thank-you

That is their official response today for what it's worth....

And I'm not going to respond to the last few posts as it turns into a battle of words and I respect Barry's wishes.

Bird Watcher

03-19-2010, 08:29 PM

And don't forget... There's a great wine selection at all price points at Fircrest Market in Sebastopol! :wink: (Plus beer, too, for those that likes.)

daynurse

03-19-2010, 09:18 PM

I'm posting below a follow-up written by the same 65 year old MAN who wrote the first. Interesting that Safeway told him the problem is specific to Petaluma. Again, it was not me who had this experience.

Peggy

Safeway Explains Scanning Policy–Drivers’ Licenses (https://frankpetaluma.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/safeway-explains-scanning-policy-drivers-licenses/)

Posted by Frank Simpson under Consumer Alerts (https://en.wordpress.com/tag/consumer-alerts/), General (https://en.wordpress.com/tag/general/) | Tags: Drivers License (https://en.wordpress.com/tag/drivers-license/), grocery store scans (https://en.wordpress.com/tag/grocery-store-scans/), Proof of Age (https://en.wordpress.com/tag/proof-of-age/) |
[4] Comments (https://frankpetaluma.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/safeway-explains-scanning-policy-drivers-licenses/#comments)

Foreword

I would like to thank all of those who posted constructive comments to this blog and to the Petaluma 360 Forums (Click Here) (https://forum.petaluma360.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52) on the topic of scanning drivers’ licenses.
In addition, I would also like to thank Senator Diane Feinstein for the information she provided about the size and scope of the identity theft problem in terms of costs and losses. I will most likely make use of this information in a future article. But now, let’s return to the Safeway Story…

Safeway Response

On March 17, 2010, I received a call from the Susan Houghton, Director of Public Affairs for Safeway. She said they had been having problems with underage purchases at the Petaluma store.
Consequently, Safeway instituted a practice they use in those stores where underage sales have been a problem–requiring all customers, regardless of apparent age, to produce and scan their cards if they purchase alcohol.
Houghton also advised that if customers objected to the license scan, the clerks have been instructed to tell them that they could ask for a manager. If they do, the manager will come and make a judgment as to whether the customer is obviously over 21 years of age. If so, the manager will then enter a code permitting the sale to go through without the license scan.
In addition, she promised to remind the store manager and district manager of the procedures.

COMMENT

There is no doubt that the procedure would be almost 100% effective (nothing is ever 100%) in preventing underage alcohol sales. There is also no doubt in my mind that it will force people to always present their license for scanning.
Why?
Simple.
Social pressure.
On a busy after work evening, who wants to be the one holding up a line of customers to insist on their “right” to have a manager come over to assess whether or not they are over 21? To put it another way, can you envision Frances Rivetti’s “90-year-old with a walker out to top up the sherry supply” (https://francesrivetti.typepad.com/blogs/2010/03/petaluma-spectator-citizen-reporter-takes-on-safeway-tactics-on-national-radio.html)doing this?

Of course, all of this assumes that customers are aware of their “right” to ask for a manager.

It also assumes that the clerks are going to tell a customer of that right if they object. Remember, they are not interested in holding up the line any more than the customer is.
I can’t really envision a scenario where the manager is called to the check out stand each time a customer refuses to have his or her license scanned. That would be absolute chaos in a busy store.
In short, it is a “right” without any substance.
Given proper training, you would think that a rule of reason could be established where only those customers who may look to be only 30 are asked to show, not scan, their driver’s license. The information for age verification is clearly shown on the license. There is no reason to scan the license–except to collect data. If Safeway has a problem with underage sales in a store, it is a management/training issue. Draconian solutions such as the one implemented by Safeway are unacceptable to me as a customer.
As for me…

I will no longer purchase wine at Safeway exceptas “tests” to secure information for future articles. And yes, I always follow up.
There are three other stores (Raley’s, G & G, Trader Joes) within a very short distance of Safeway that do not follow the Safeway policy and they will get my “wine” business.
The practical effect is that they will also get much more of my regular grocery business.I have heard from many about various ideas to demonstrate the lunacy of this Safeway policy. Many of the ideas are quite amusing–some are downright hilarious. At the moment I am not prepared for such action. On the other hand, if you want to discuss further, post a comment below.
If you prefer a more private channel, send an e-mail to
[email protected] ([email protected])
Above all, stay tuned!

daynurse

03-19-2010, 09:27 PM

Same author:

"UPDATE--For those interested in registering their displeasure over Safeway's policy you can write directly to:

Stephen A. Burd, Chairman, President & CEO
Safeway Inc.
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3229

In addition there is an e-mail address you can also use-- [email protected] ([email protected]) "

Bird Watcher

03-19-2010, 09:49 PM

I'm posting below a follow-up written by the same 65 year old MAN who wrote the first. Interesting that Safeway told him the problem is specific to Petaluma. Again, it was not me who had this experience.

Peggy

Hmm. A man behind me in line at the Rohnert Park Safeway was asked to have his license scanned. And since then, I've shopped at Trader Joe's and Bev Mo without requested scans. Something's fishy!!

Pam

debbus

03-20-2010, 10:53 AM

This actually happened to me at a chain restaurant in Washington State-along with a number of other people. The cashier used my debit card#.

Long's Drug did this same thing in the mid 2000's and it failed miserably. They had so many complaints they elected to stop. There were also accusations of Identity theft.

You should be concerned about surrendering your drivers license to someone for several reasons. Your private information is information that can be used for much more than data-basing and submittion to the personal-profile national database (see Experian.com). This information helps the depositories help to determine who you are and your buying patterns. Therefore, they can offer you coupons that target your needs - your consumer profile.

And understand that while we can think we trust that person at the cash register, it's not always so. Some cashiers (not directed at Safeway) have their own portable scanners and will scan your card and drivers license to a base they can sell - for ID theft. Because of this, it's against the law to handle a persons I.D., credit or debit card out of the sight of it's owner in Texas. The bottom line: can you be guaranteed the info will remain safe and private? No!.

And how many times in the last year alone have we read where someone lost their laptop, the one that had all the customer's private info on them.

The more information you allow to be released into the social mainstream, the more likely you have of an identity theft.

I've done a recent story on this very thing on CNNRadio and CBS stations. It's about the facts and only the facts.

n4rky

03-20-2010, 11:38 AM

This actually happened to me at a chain restaurant in Washington State-along with a number of other people. The cashier used my debit card#.

So to make it all painfully obvious, we have a widening number of establishments "scanning" and therefore collecting information about us. We are losing privacy in what we purchase, when we purchase it, and where we purchase it. Under the Bush administration, private corporations received contracts to accumulate all this information and to make it available for the domestic spying operations of the government.

The Obama administration has done nothing to reverse this and in fact has sought to preserve the policies of the Bush administration.

That's why it is important to resist at the cashier.

gnc sebastopol

03-20-2010, 11:59 AM

tj's is a family owned operation? the information I found showed that it was owned by a German businessman, Theo Albrecht who was the 9th richest man in the world according to Forbes 2009. Do you know something I don't know?

...(Granted TJ's might appear to be a corporate store, but it's still a PRIVATELY HELD family owned operation:):
In peace & harmony,)
Mark

debbus

03-20-2010, 12:08 PM

I have a love hate relationship with TJ's. Most of the produce in not local and their "cage free" eggs were found to be coming from a mass production egg farm (remember the video's?) But they do have some good buys and sell Niman's meats.

bodegahead

03-20-2010, 06:53 PM

Safeway is obviously trying to protect themselves from an ABC vioalation and/or undercover ABC sting . They (ABC) are constantly performing stings using 20 yr old agents that look much older.

My 16 yr old daughter and I were shopping Seb. Safeway a few weeks ago.

We checked out with all kinds of groceries and 1 six pack of beer. The bill was somthing like $80.54. I had all twenty$ bills and a few quarters, like $80.50. I didn`t want to break a twenty for just 4 cents, so my daugter gave me a nickle.As I handed the money to the clerk the clerk asked my daughter for Id. We thought cashier was joking but cashier refused to accept the nickle my daughter had given me and made me break the twenty. Me and my daughter were so shocked by tis weirdness it left us to sppechless to argue the matter. I`m 57, they. didn`t ask for my ID, but would not let my daughter contribute a nickle to an 80 $ grocery bill that included 10$ worth of beer because she was a minor.

podfish

03-20-2010, 08:01 PM

dandss1

03-20-2010, 09:33 PM

Shop at Cost Plus....better wines, better prices and no one scans your drivers license. Geeze people, you are in charge of your own destiny. No one at Safeway holds you hostage until you scan your ID. If some clerk demands it, just walk away. Simple as that.

n4rky

03-20-2010, 10:41 PM

David Brin's Official Web Site: The Transparent Society, and Other Articles about Security and Privacy (https://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.htm)

we're losing privacy everywhere. On a personal level, that bothers me a lot - I value privacy. On a political level, I think Brin might have the right idea.

Whatever one may think of Brin's idea, his facts are wrong and he seems to draw entirely wrong lessons from recent experience. I should also caution that he appears sloppy in citing sources; I may be misattributing quotes because I can't always tell whether they're his words or someone else's. He states in the promotion for his book:

Although elites of all kinds still have many advantages over commonfolk, never before have citizens been so empowered. And history shows that this didn't happen by blinding the mighty -- a futile endeavor that has never worked. It happened by insisting that everybody get to see. By citizens demanding the power to know.

This seems to completely ignore the experience of the Bush administration. Here's more:

"The Security community, culminating in Attorney General John Ashcroft, must recognize that we will not give them sweeping new powers of vision without demanding compensating powers of accountability and supervision. I have no objection to our guard dog seeing better -- providing common citizens get a better choke chain, to remind the creature he's a dog, not a wolf."

The people have in fact been largely silent as Congress has repeatedly renewed the Patriot Act, most recently within the last month. Our dearly beloved president asked for the renewal, complete with the most controversial provisions, and got it.

"Consider how future Sept. 11-type events might differ if the wireless 'intelligence network' worked even faster or if cell phones had cameras that let citizens instantly transmit useful intelligence about perpetrators. Or if millions of cheap, solar-powered 'volksradio' phones using relay-style formats were to flood poor countries, helping locals discuss issues unobserved by their tyrants."

Wow. Let's forget all about Operation TIPS. I quote here from Naomi Wolf in The End of America:

In July of 2002, the Bush administration rolled out Operation TIPS, the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, which sought to recruit "a million letter carriers, meter readers, cable technicians, and other workers with access to private homes as informants to report to the Justice Department any activities they think suspicious." TIPS was to begin with a pilot program in ten cities and offered citizens a toll-free number to call. The million citizens the program hoped to enlist would have worked out to one informant for every twenty-four Americans. (The ACLU notes that this pilot program alone would have doubled the Stasi's ratio of informant to citizen....)

The real problem here is not unlike our means for obtaining detainees for Guantanamo. In offering rewards for Afghans to turn each other in, we paid them to settle old scores. The result was that the vast majority of people the U.S. detained were entirely innocent, known to be innocent, and held and in some cases tortured regardless. This program, by the way, largely continues even under the Obama administration. When Bagram attracted too much attention, these war crimes continued at holding facilities scattered across Afghanistan (https://www.diigo.com/cached?url=https://www.thenation.com/doc/20100215/gopal/single).

Given our own experiences with the Salem Witch Trials and with McCarthyism (and there are other, more controversial examples), it seems unlikely we'd do any better than the Afghans. The fact is that this would destroy society as we know it.

Rob95472

03-21-2010, 09:14 PM

Congratulations. You know, the clerk was doing what his/her job requirements, well, required. (Maybe keeping a job to boot!) I'd rather make someone break a $20 than have a kid squished on Hwy 116 for drinking and driving. I've passed enough roadside memorials to know that someone else probably would feel the same, given another chance to see those kids. So, feel better for spending a few minutes doing what the clerk needed -- and maybe figuring some other Sebastopol teen will live by having these rules enforced.

Safeway is obviously trying to protect themselves from an ABC vioalation and/or undercover ABC sting . They (ABC) are constantly performing stings using 20 yr old agents that look much older.

My 16 yr old daughter and I were shopping Seb. Safeway a few weeks ago.

We checked out with all kinds of groceries and 1 six pack of beer. The bill was somthing like $80.54. I had all twenty$ bills and a few quarters, like $80.50. I didn`t want to break a twenty for just 4 cents, so my daugter gave me a nickle.As I handed the money to the clerk the clerk asked my daughter for Id. We thought cashier was joking but cashier refused to accept the nickle my daughter had given me and made me break the twenty. Me and my daughter were so shocked by tis weirdness it left us to sppechless to argue the matter. I`m 57, they. didn`t ask for my ID, but would not let my daughter contribute a nickle to an 80 $ grocery bill that included 10$ worth of beer because she was a minor.

Juggledude

03-22-2010, 03:57 PM

Congratulations. You know, the clerk was doing what his/her job requirements, well, required. (Maybe keeping a job to boot!) I'd rather make someone break a $20 than have a kid squished on Hwy 116 for drinking and driving. I've passed enough roadside memorials to know that someone else probably would feel the same, given another chance to see those kids. So, feel better for spending a few minutes doing what the clerk needed -- and maybe figuring some other Sebastopol teen will live by having these rules enforced.

Wow Rob, that's a heck of a stretch...

How is not accepting a nickel that a teen hands to her mom to cover the grocery bill going to save a life?

Sure, not selling to the teen is a completely different matter, but there's this little thing called a judgement call... when a situation is so blatantly outside the scope of the intention it's a no brainer, even for a moron.

Thing is, our society is keyed to the lowest common denominator... i.e. we have to moron proof our policies lest we get sued, or busted, or whatnot. What's left is this majority of us who are possessed of common sense having to deal with the consequences of living in a society with those who are not.

Royce

n4rky

03-22-2010, 05:35 PM

Wow Rob, that's a heck of a stretch...

How is not accepting a nickel that a teen hands to her mom to cover the grocery bill going to save a life?

Indeed. My own feeling is that Rob's response fails a test of relevance.

The primary concern expressed in this thread has been about the accumulation of private information by corporations and from there, the government. Safeway justifies its actions with something like Rob's explanation, but in this case, it is simply incoherent.

If the teen's mother is going to give the booze to the teen, she will do so whether or not she has to break a $20 bill. So the Safeway clerk's action is irrelevant both to privacy concerns heretofore expressed and the rationale expressed by Safeway. And Rob's response fails accordingly.

What this clerk's action, being otherwise so completely nonsensical, actually reveals is that Safeway's policy is being implemented in a way to exert control over customers. It is precisely the kind of behavior that is sensible only as a means of gaining acquiescence to a nascent authoritarian regime.

In isolation, we would likely choose to interpret the clerk's action as simply stupid. But in our present environment, the alternative is cause for concern.

justme

03-22-2010, 05:48 PM

Indeed. My own feeling is that Rob's response fails a test of relevance.

The primary concern expressed in this thread has been about the accumulation of private information by corporations and from there, the government. Safeway justifies its actions with something like Rob's explanation, but in this case, it is simply incoherent.

If the teen's mother is going to give the booze to the teen, she will do so whether or not she has to break a $20 bill. So the Safeway clerk's action is irrelevant both to privacy concerns heretofore expressed and the rationale expressed by Safeway. And Rob's response fails accordingly.

What this clerk's action, being otherwise so completely nonsensical, actually reveals is that Safeway's policy is being implemented in a way to exert control over customers. It is precisely the kind of behavior that is sensible only as a means of gaining acquiescence to a nascent authoritarian regime.

In isolation, we would likely choose to interpret the clerk's action as simply stupid. But in our present environment, the alternative is cause for concern.

:kneel:

Sciguy

03-22-2010, 09:42 PM

The comments here are interesting and surely cast more light on the attitudes of writers than on the underlying story, which I still fail to understand.

I haven't seen anyone question the point of asking a 16 year old for her ID. Presumably the mom (dad?) admitted that the daughter was 16 so what purpose would the ID serve? Mention was made of having to break a twenty so it sounds like the mom had to publicly return the nickel to her daughter so the clerk could see it done.

Can there actually be a law governing what a clerk is allowed to see? Could there be a law or a case, about a transaction "that arouses the clerk's suspicion"? Could the clerk have been on solid legal ground here? It seems unlikely.

Tentatively it seems more likely that the clerk was just being foolishly overcautious. Or scared of making a misstep that could cost his job. That would pretty much undercut talk of Safeway's insidious anti-human policies, wouldn't it?

Does anyone actually know why a clerk might feel a need to act this way, outside of a store policy? Or why this clerk did behave that way? Only then can we draw conclusions.

Sciguy

Indeed. My own feeling is that Rob's response fails a test of relevance.

The primary concern expressed in this thread has been about the accumulation of private information by corporations and from there, the government. Safeway justifies its actions with something like Rob's explanation, but in this case, it is simply incoherent.

.

Serendipity

03-22-2010, 10:04 PM

It's not about Safeway and corporations or privacy and it's not about a nickle or saving lives. It's about ethics. The employee could not accept a nickle from the daughter because that could be turned into a case of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The person working does not only make choices based on job requirements. The person on the other side of the counter has ethical choices and judgment calls to make. I worked at a winery where I have actually had parents give their children, even a baby, their credit card to hand to me. In this case, I simply said, "I'm sorry, I cannot accept your card from your child." I stood so my body language was consistent and I made no effort to receive form of payment, giving time to the parent to re-think their action and realize what they were unconsciously asking of me.
The whole thing in the store is not personal and not meant to inconvenience someone but it is a subtle consciousness raising matter that can hopefully shed a little light into how interconnected we all are and how important the work is that even cashiers do at a store.
:thumbsup:

:kneel:

Serendipity

03-22-2010, 10:10 PM

No, no, no. It is a case of ethics. If I had a grocery store and I was in this situation, running the business myself and working as a cashier, I would NOT accept the nickle either. The parent/consumer does not realize what he/she is subtly asking of the cashier and though subtle, an ethical cashier must be concerned about a purchase that includes both the purchase of alcohol and the payment of any part of the purchase (however small) by the minor.

Indeed. My own feeling is that Rob's response fails a test of relevance.

The primary concern expressed in this thread has been about the accumulation of private information by corporations and from there, the government. Safeway justifies its actions with something like Rob's explanation, but in this case, it is simply incoherent.

If the teen's mother is going to give the booze to the teen, she will do so whether or not she has to break a $20 bill. So the Safeway clerk's action is irrelevant both to privacy concerns heretofore expressed and the rationale expressed by Safeway. And Rob's response fails accordingly.

What this clerk's action, being otherwise so completely nonsensical, actually reveals is that Safeway's policy is being implemented in a way to exert control over customers. It is precisely the kind of behavior that is sensible only as a means of gaining acquiescence to a nascent authoritarian regime.

In isolation, we would likely choose to interpret the clerk's action as simply stupid. But in our present environment, the alternative is cause for concern.

n4rky

03-22-2010, 10:32 PM

It's about ethics. The employee could not accept a nickle from the daughter because that could be turned into a case of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.... The whole thing in the store is not personal and not meant to inconvenience someone but it is a subtle consciousness raising matter that can hopefully shed a little light into how interconnected we all are and how important the work is that even cashiers do at a store.

How, exactly, would you be contributing to the delinquency of a minor in the case stated, where Bodegahead "checked out with all kinds of groceries and 1 six pack of beer?" And how can such behavior, which is much more likely to be interpreted as an irrational attempt to impose a purist standard, be seen as "consciousness raising," particularly when even you describe it as "subtle?"

n4rky

03-22-2010, 10:44 PM

Tentatively it seems more likely that the clerk was just being foolishly overcautious. Or scared of making a misstep that could cost his job. That would pretty much undercut talk of Safeway's insidious anti-human policies, wouldn't it?

Safeway would be anti-human in either of the following circumstances:

The clerk is in so much fear of losing his or her job that she or he feels compelled to act foolishly.
The scanned driver's license information is indeed being accumulated (as it almost certainly is).

So exactly how does this "pretty much undercut talk of Safeway's insidious anti-human policies?"

Sciguy

03-22-2010, 11:11 PM

Serendipity:

It seems that since you have been in the cashier's position, you are bending over backwards to justify her act and in the process lost a bit of the actual story.

As I understand it, the daughter never handed any money to the clerk, which would have been a much clearer violation. Instead, the daughter handed her dad a nickel. It was the 57 year old dad which paid for the groceries entirely.

The dad told me privately that I guessed right. He had to publicly and purposely hand the nickel back to his daughter.

You talk about a dad handing a baby a credit card to hand to you. What if the baby had the credit card in his crib and handed it to the dad or the dad took it out of the crib? Would you have the ethical duty to oversee the source of the credit card in a private transaction in a family you happened to witness. Could you even have designated it a transaction in your mind or is it just an insignificant family event. I think you would agree it was just the latter. I would say that the reason people see the clerk's action as overbearing and uncalled for is that it was none of her business where the dad got his money. Families share money. Now butt out! No one asked her to receive money directly from a minor and that has to be some kind of dividing line. Did the clerk have the right to make the dad sign a statement about where his money originated? Did he have to show a paycheck? Well, you see how quickly it gets ridiculous. Taking money from a minor is one thing. Everything else is otherwise.

Sciguy

It's not about Safeway and corporations or privacy and it's not about a nickle or saving lives. It's about ethics. The employee could not accept a nickle from the daughter because that could be turned into a case of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The person working does not only make choices based on job requirements. The person on the other side of the counter has ethical choices and judgment calls to make. I worked at a winery where I have actually had parents give their children, even a baby, their credit card to hand to me. In this case, I simply said, "I'm sorry, I cannot accept your card from your child." I stood so my body language was consistent and I made no effort to receive form of payment, giving time to the parent to re-think their action and realize what they were unconsciously asking of me.
The whole thing in the store is not personal and not meant to inconvenience someone but it is a subtle consciousness raising matter that can hopefully shed a little light into how interconnected we all are and how important the work is that even cashiers do at a store.
:thumbsup:

Sciguy

03-22-2010, 11:25 PM

n4rky:

Now you are getting too subtle for me. Maybe you are right and the store creates a climate of fear. There is nothing in the story to suggest that. Maybe the clerk was sexually abused by her father and just hates men.. Nothing to suggest that either. I would prefer to limit myself to what is actually known.

I expect you are right that the scanned driver's license is kept on some kind of file. Why wouldn't it be? The store doesn't want to destroy evidence that it is probably required by law to keep. Stores are often accused of having sold to minors and need evidence for their defense.

I'm not defending Safeway or the cloying, impoverishing corporatism in which we are drowning. There is plenty of reason to indict corporations for their despicable acts. But as Groucho said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sciguy

Safeway would be anti-human in either of the following circumstances:
The clerk is in so much fear of losing his or her job that she or he feels compelled to act foolishly.
The scanned driver's license information is indeed being accumulated (as it almost certainly is).
So exactly how does this "pretty much undercut talk of Safeway's insidious anti-human policies?"

bodegahead

03-22-2010, 11:27 PM

ooops, thought I posted this publicly, must have hit the wrong button, for the rest of you, here is a little clarification.

My daughter gave the nickel to me.The clerk insisted that I return the nickel to my daughter and carefully witnessed it.
I feel the clerk was overcautious, but knowing the zealousness of the ABC these days, I can kind of understand.
As my daughter and I stood there jaws agape and speechless, the clerk, in a lecturing manner, explained to us the law and stated she could lose her job over it. It seemed so ridiculous my daughter and I were to blown away to argue the absurdity.
I did talk with the store manager a few days later and got the response I expected. He backed the employee stating ABC and store policy, though I could tell he knew nothing bad would have happened to anyone if the clerk just accepted the nickel. No firing, no ABC bust.
I have a feeling that if the same thing happened or happens with any other clerk, they would let it slide.
By the way, I am the daughters Dad

n4rky

03-22-2010, 11:42 PM

Maybe you are right and the store creates a climate of fear. There is nothing in the story to suggest that.

Actually, given the economic climate with a prospect of no real recovery in employment for years to come, anyone with a job should be afraid of losing it. That's pretty much a known. Given the hierarchical nature of employer-employee relationships, Safeway could hardly avoid exploiting such a fear.

I expect you are right that the scanned driver's license is kept on some kind of file. Why wouldn't it be? The store doesn't want to destroy evidence that it is probably required by law to keep. Stores are often accused of having sold to minors and need evidence for their defense.

This would be my expectation of the rationale as well.

I'm not defending Safeway or the cloying, impoverishing corporatism in which we are drowning. There is plenty of reason to indict corporations for their despicable acts. But as Groucho said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sciguy

And as I indicated, it is possible that Safeway is indeed respecting the privacy of its customers and not using scanned information for any other purpose than assuring itself and regulators of compliance with the law on selling to minors.

But we live in a country where this has often not been the case, where information collected for legitimate reasons has been forwarded on, ultimately to the domestic spying operations begun under the last presidential administration and not ended under the present administration. The possibility--and I think a probability--exists that Safeway customers' alcohol purchasing habits will wind up in some government database.

And of course it sounds over the top. But so much that has happened in recent years has been just that.

bodegahead

03-22-2010, 11:55 PM

If they are going to scan for alcohol purchases, shouldn`t they be scanning for tobacco purchases also?

Sciguy

03-23-2010, 12:50 AM

N4rky:
Yes you are right about that. Anyone with a job or any other kind of little security is holding on to it with both hands. And yes, employers are using that to freeze or lower wages, reduce health care, send jobs offshore and all the rest. It wasn't in the story directly but it's true.

Actually, given the economic climate with a prospect of no real recovery in employment for years to come, anyone with a job should be afraid of losing it. That's pretty much a known. Given the hierarchical nature of employer-employee relationships, Safeway could hardly avoid exploiting such a fear.

This would be my expectation of the rationale as well.

And as I indicated, it is possible that Safeway is indeed respecting the privacy of its customers and not using scanned information for any other purpose than assuring itself and regulators of compliance with the law on selling to minors.

But we live in a country where this has often not been the case, where information collected for legitimate reasons has been forwarded on, ultimately to the domestic spying operations begun under the last presidential administration and not ended under the present administration. The possibility--and I think a probability--exists that Safeway customers' alcohol purchasing habits will wind up in some government database.

In my book your problem is that you need to be more paranoid about all of this. The government hardly needs one more copy of your driver's license. They're the ones who gave it to you. As for who buys alcohol, isn't that redundant? Everyone drinks alcohol more or less. Why would the government care about that unless they could identify alcoholics. Maybe for blackmail. But the way they find out about that is not some license copy. First they have credit card usage at bars which they can sift through. Second, Safeway has that Savings Card they use with your number on it. They pay you (or at least stop overcharging you) if you tell them who you are when you check out. They know every single item you buy every time and it's all connected to your name. That's how come they can send you and ad for Greasy Monkey Fingers that only goes to the fried cracker junkies and not to the rest. So they know much alcohol you're buying without some driver's license.

Would Safeway share that with the government? Did AT&T roll over and play dead for Ashcroft? You bet! In a heartbeat! Now they can even cross correlate that with your legal weed purchases. They know all your weaknesses and that tells them who is vulnerable. Watch that TED video by Tim Berner Lees about correlating data on the web. It isn't only geography that they can correlate. The privacy battle is lost on that front. We need a new way to think about this. Hiding what you do will no longer work. Assume they know where you are and what you are thinking. Now how do you still build a better world to live in?

Sciguy

And of course it sounds over the top. But so much that has happened in recent years has been just that.

edie

03-23-2010, 01:46 PM

The daughter gave the nickel to the mother not to the clerk!
I would have left the whole shopping-cart there... and go shopping somewhere else... half the stuff in there- in the long run -can kill you anyway...

...about loosing privacy- perhaps we all are going a little bit paranoid- just think about that's the way they can catch criminals. All has two sides.

Some cities in Europe have cameras all over and every where to catch the bad ones, or for an emergency... etc.

I think our societies are getting a bit too large for wanting to have our own little private-world-territory and not have anybody bugging in...

... working together is sometimes hard to do...

daynurse

03-23-2010, 02:54 PM

Edie,

Your statement "...about loosing privacy- perhaps we all are going a little bit paranoid- just think about that's the way they can catch criminals. "

It makes me believe you have an innocent way of looking at the current state of affairs in law enforcement and the judicial system. How do you define "criminal"? It's hotly debated. While I don't support drug use, I don't believe our prisons should be crowded with people who fall under outdated laws and mandatory sentencing.

At the same time, several recent cases of convicted sex offenders getting out of jail and committing more horrific offenses have highlighted the need to "throw away " the proverbial key in some cases in order to protect our sweet children.

Now I am the one taking this off the topic, which was about how it is our due diligence to protect our own privacy and question any policy that encroaches on our constitutional right to privacy.

And a smaller matter:

"The daughter gave the nickel to the mother not to the clerk!"

Just in case you didn't carefully read the posts about this, it was a man who received the nickel from his daughter.

I'm hoping your posting mean you're interested in learning more about how our civil rights are being exploited.

Take gentle care,
Peggy

"Mad" Miles

03-23-2010, 03:53 PM

Daynurse,

Nice reply to Edie. But when I read Edie's post my thought was, that must be what the Good Germans thought under the Nazis. As long as public safety was the purpose, whatever the government does must be OK, they're just trying to protect us from the bad guys. Society is big and complex, we just can't afford the luxury of privacy, otherwise the bad guys (i.e. Jews, Communists, Terrorists, Drug Dealers, Child Molesters, Satanist Pagans, Married Homosexuals, etc..) might win.

It reminded me of my Sophomore Honors World History students back in '05-'06 who thought that the government reading our emails and listening to our phone conversations was just fine. Nobody who was innocent has anything to worry about, it's only the bad guys who would object to such surveillance. If you're not guilty of anything why should you care if Big Brother snoops into every detail of your personal life?

I on the other hand ascribe to Michel Foucault's statement, in a seminar with Gilles Deleuze back in the early seventies, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If we want to be revolutionaries the first thing we must do is kill the cop in our own heads."

"A job is not just a job, we are what we do and if we want to change we have to change our jobs." Bit of key dialog, also paraphrased, from "Repo Men" (2010)

Believe me, as someone who worked in San Quentin State Prison for the last three years before being laid off due to the state budget crisis, this question, and related ones, were things I thought long and hard about in the five months leading up to working there, the entire time I was there, and since. Someday I hope to put some of what I came up with down on the page.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

justme

03-23-2010, 06:02 PM

justme

03-23-2010, 06:05 PM

n4rky

03-23-2010, 06:31 PM

But when I read Edie's post my thought was, that must be what the Good Germans thought under the Nazis. As long as public safety was the purpose, whatever the government does must be OK, they're just trying to protect us from the bad guys. Society is big and complex, we just can't afford the luxury of privacy, otherwise the bad guys (i.e. Jews, Communists, Terrorists, Drug Dealers, Child Molesters, Satanist Pagans, Married Homosexuals, etc..) might win.

]It reminded me of my Sophomore Honors World History students back in '05-'06 who thought that the government reading our emails and listening to our phone conversations was just fine. Nobody who was innocent has anything to worry about, it's only the bad guys who would object to such surveillance. If you're not guilty of anything why should you care if Big Brother snoops into every detail of your personal life?

Alas, this too must be made painfully clear. That it is okay for authorities to accumulate vast amounts of data on what is essentially a fishing expedition is to assume that such data is unambiguous even under the wildest possible interpretation. There are very few facts which cannot somehow be twisted.

LenInSebastopol

03-24-2010, 05:46 AM

Daynurse,
As long as public safety was the purpose, whatever the government does must be OK, they're just trying to protect us from the bad guys. Society is big and complex, we just can't afford the luxury of privacy, otherwise the bad guys (i.e. Jews, Communists, Terrorists, Drug Dealers, Child Molesters, Satanist Pagans, Married Homosexuals, etc..) might win.

But that is how it is always sold to us, and the slippery slope applies, so we have "politics". Rather than 'public safety' maybe 'public contract'?

It reminded me of my Sophomore Honors World History students back in '05-'06 who thought that the government reading our emails and listening to our phone conversations was just fine. Nobody who was innocent has anything to worry about, it's only the bad guys who would object to such surveillance. If you're not guilty of anything why should you care if Big Brother snoops into every detail of your personal life?

That's why we call them "children". So innocent!

I on the other hand ascribe to Michel Foucault's statement, in a seminar with Gilles Deleuze back in the early seventies, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If we want to be revolutionaries the first thing we must do is kill the cop in our own heads."

That is why I like watching "The Office".
Who ARE those people talking to? And who are the ones in your head?
But from a guy who claimed to be the new Nietzsche?

"A job is not just a job, we are what we do and if we want to change we have to change our jobs." Bit of key dialog, also paraphrased, from "Repo Men" (2010)

Sorry, I've never bought into that male stereotype. A job IS a job and we are something different.

Believe me, as someone who worked in San Quentin State Prison for the last three years before being laid off due to the state budget crisis, this question, and related ones, were things I thought long and hard about in the five months leading up to working there, the entire time I was there, and since. Someday I hope to put some of what I came up with down on the page. "Mad" Miles

Just finished our own Buzzy Martin's book,
DON'T SHOOT, I'M THE GUITAR MAN
and found it wild! Look forward to reading your'n.

edie

03-24-2010, 09:46 AM

The Nazis and specially the SS didn't care much about the people, or it wouldn't have come to the horrors. They where a sick, crazy nasty group of people with lots of guns to give them power over others.

edie

03-24-2010, 10:31 AM

daynurse,

Sorry to the mother that was a man...

I had an "innocent" way of looking at the state of affairs thirty years ago- I knew I am not studied in politics, I had enough to worry about "my private" world. I left politics to the "smart and studied" people in this field who get plenty paid for it- my world was peaceful. As a friend of mine ones said:" I have to trust them or I am getting crazy".

I started getting crazy and scared a long time ago, the first time I lost jobs because of politics and I learned quickly about lots of things. Since then I heard a lot about the ones who complain, and the ones that don't. The people who fight about something and the ones that don't.

As I would have a lot to say about the health care bill but I have not read the three thousand or so pages therefor I cant say much. Whom should I believe? Should I scream before hand or wait what will be? Should I read the pages or what... I decided that I have to wait and see. I am sure some is good and some is negative... there will be lots of changes in the future- I bet, and changes are always difficult, cause they are unknown, ways ahead that have not been walked on...

And yes, I could give you a very long list of what I think is wrong and wasted in this country- but also what is good... good things no other country has.

Lately I hear too much complaining and I got tired of it- somewhere in between I have to place a little bit trust. E

Ted Pole

03-24-2010, 10:43 AM

On the other hand you could just quit drinking. That way, you'll be clear-headed when the storm troopers kick in your front door and drag you off to the gulag.

:dancingleprechaun::plumber:

"Mad" Miles

03-24-2010, 12:54 PM

Oh god, now Edie is paraphrasing Nazis? Or as you call them "good Germans"? Some posts are just plain ludicrous.....

If you do not understand the distinction between which Germans between 1933 and 1945 were Nazis, and which ones were just "Good Germans" I suggest you do a little research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust). Your conflation of the two betrays your ignorance in the matter.

In a nutshell, most Germans were not Nazis, yet most were "Good" Germans. Whether all German Nazis, and by Nazi here I mean party members and adherents to the ideology, were also "Good" Germans? By the lights of their day, they were, but the term does not refer specifically to them.

The "Good" Germans are generally understood to be the ones who believed what they were told, did what they were told and justified it because it was commonly conceived as the right thing to think, feel and do.

They were the ones, who when confronted with the brutal evidence of the Holocaust, cried, "But we didn't know!?" Including townsfolk who lived in sight of concentration camps with crematoriums working 24/7 and the smoke and stench from which permeated their daily lives.

There was a major debate about a history book published back in the nineties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executioners) which claimed that all Germans were morally responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. It's quite an interesting and complex issue. And one apropo for consideration by the citizens of the headquarters nation for the global empire of Capitalism.

As for what Edie wrote, I was very careful to indicate that it reminded me of something. My (in)exact phrase was, "when I read...my thought was..." That is far different than saying she said the same thing. So I didn't claim she was paraphrasing shit, and your question about me doing so indicates that you don't read very carefully. At least that's the kindest way I can characterize that part of your response.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Valley Oak

03-24-2010, 02:33 PM

Goldhagen's thesis:

Goldhagen argued that Germans possessed a unique form of antisemitism, which he called "eliminationist antisemitism", which developed over centuries prior to the 20th century. Goldhagen contends:

First, the German perpetrators of the Holocaust treated Jews in all the brutal and lethal ways that they did because, by and large, they believed that what they were doing was right and necessary.

Second, that there was long existing, virulent antisemitism in German society that led to the desire on the part of the vast majority of Germans to eliminate Jews somehow from German society.

Third, that any explanation of the Holocaust must address and specify the causal relationship between antisemitism in Germany and the persecution and extermination of the Jews which so many ordinary Germans contributed to and supported.[6]

If you do not understand the distinction between which Germans between 1933 and 1945 were Nazis, and which ones were just "Good Germans" I suggest you do a little research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust). Your conflation of the two betrays your ignorance in the matter.

In a nutshell, most Germans were not Nazis, yet most were "Good" Germans. Whether all German Nazis, and by Nazi here I mean party members and adherents to the ideology, were also "Good" Germans? By the lights of their day, they were, but the term does not refer specifically to them.

The "Good" Germans are generally understood to be the ones who believed what they were told, did what they were told and justified it because it was commonly conceived as the right thing to think, feel and do.

They were the ones, who when confronted with the brutal evidence of the Holocaust, cried, "But we didn't know!?" Including townsfolk who lived in sight of concentration camps with crematoriums working 24/7 and the smoke and stench from which permeated their daily lives.

There was a major debate about a history book published back in the nineties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executioners) which claimed that all Germans were morally responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. It's quite an interesting and complex issue. And one apropo for consideration by the citizens of the headquarters nation for the global empire of Capitalism.

As for what Edie wrote, I was very careful to indicate that it reminded me of something. My (in)exact phrase was, "when I read...my thought was..." That is far different than saying she said the same thing. So I didn't claim she was paraphrasing shit, and your question about me doing so indicates that you don't read very carefully. At least that's the kindest way I can characterize that part of your response.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

justme

03-24-2010, 02:45 PM

justme

03-24-2010, 03:01 PM

If you do not understand the distinction between which Germans between 1933 and 1945 were Nazis, and which ones were just "Good Germans" I suggest you do a little research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust). Your conflation of the two betrays your ignorance in the matter.

In a nutshell, most Germans were not Nazis, yet most were "Good" Germans. Whether all German Nazis, and by Nazi here I mean party members and adherents to the ideology, were also "Good" Germans? By the lights of their day, they were, but the term does not refer specifically to them.

The "Good" Germans are generally understood to be the ones who believed what they were told, did what they were told and justified it because it was commonly conceived as the right thing to think, feel and do.

They were the ones, who when confronted with the brutal evidence of the Holocaust, cried, "But we didn't know!?" Including townsfolk who lived in sight of concentration camps with crematoriums working 24/7 and the smoke and stench from which permeated their daily lives.

There was a major debate about a history book published back in the nineties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executioners) which claimed that all Germans were morally responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. It's quite an interesting and complex issue. And one apropo for consideration by the citizens of the headquarters nation for the global empire of Capitalism.

As for what Edie wrote, I was very careful to indicate that it reminded me of something. My (in)exact phrase was, "when I read...my thought was..." That is far different than saying she said the same thing. So I didn't claim she was paraphrasing shit, and your question about me doing so indicates that you don't read very carefully. At least that's the kindest way I can characterize that part of your response.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

So, the Good Germans were also the " bad Germans"? People believe what they are told at times to "be compliant and not to stand out". If you didn't live in that place at that time, to make judgements about their decisions and sympathies is ignorant too. Maybe the fear of arrest, torture and who knows what else could change their talk. Until we have the threat of execution before us, we don't know what we would say or do to save our lives. Can anyone say "waterboarding"?

justme

03-24-2010, 03:05 PM

If you do not understand the distinction between which Germans between 1933 and 1945 were Nazis, and which ones were just "Good Germans" I suggest you do a little research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust). Your conflation of the two betrays your ignorance in the matter.

In a nutshell, most Germans were not Nazis, yet most were "Good" Germans. Whether all German Nazis, and by Nazi here I mean party members and adherents to the ideology, were also "Good" Germans? By the lights of their day, they were, but the term does not refer specifically to them.

The "Good" Germans are generally understood to be the ones who believed what they were told, did what they were told and justified it because it was commonly conceived as the right thing to think, feel and do.

They were the ones, who when confronted with the brutal evidence of the Holocaust, cried, "But we didn't know!?" Including townsfolk who lived in sight of concentration camps with crematoriums working 24/7 and the smoke and stench from which permeated their daily lives.

There was a major debate about a history book published back in the nineties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executioners) which claimed that all Germans were morally responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. It's quite an interesting and complex issue. And one apropo for consideration by the citizens of the headquarters nation for the global empire of Capitalism.

As for what Edie wrote, I was very careful to indicate that it reminded me of something. My (in)exact phrase was, "when I read...my thought was..." That is far different than saying she said the same thing. So I didn't claim she was paraphrasing shit, and your question about me doing so indicates that you don't read very carefully. At least that's the kindest way I can characterize that part of your response.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

And in response to the last paragraph you wrote, I do read carefully and your put downs serve you better than me. Your insults are noted but pretty much ignored.

Barry

03-24-2010, 03:13 PM

:chillpill: :chillpill:

Anybody got anything else to say about this new practice of scanning driver's licenses, which apparantly is not limited to Safeway?

n4rky

03-24-2010, 03:14 PM

How did this thread go from checking id's to anti-semitism? The posts end up being a sounding board for personal beliefs about any un-related topic to attacks on other people posting...

Rush Limbaugh has followers in the liberal arena too.....Just a different delivery....

Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.

'Justme' advocates policies which are comparable to those implemented in the rise of Nazism. And then he wonders how we get to be talking about anti-semitism.

justme

03-24-2010, 03:26 PM

Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.

'Justme' advocates policies which are comparable to those implemented in the rise of Nazism. And then he wonders how we get to be talking about anti-semitism.

Nope, not advocating that. Just another view.....

On the reservarion in Arizona when I was buying tobacco products, they checked my id too. I am 56. No problem. I asked them why and they said for tax purposes and because of minor sales. No nazis, no gulag, just protection from lawsuits and illegal sales citations....

If you think I am a nazi sympathizer, as it appears, so be it. I cannot change your mind and won't attempt to. But because of litigation, a lot of companies find themselves trying to give good customer service but at the same time be compliant with govt. pressure.

Try getting on the govt's case about it, instead of a 9.00 hr. clerk's. ass...

justme

03-24-2010, 03:40 PM

I am done espousing my views on this thread... See you on another. I do read and consider everyone's views as food for thought. Thanks all and thanks to daynurse too....

edie

03-24-2010, 03:44 PM

...what a way to go from a nickel- mother- man at Safeway...

"Mad" Miles, I did know what you meant...

I really didn't have in mind to go there...

I also always wanted to know WHY the Germans said they didn't know about the crematoriums. One day I got a book into my hands called: Poland, by James A. Michener, 1983. It's about Poland from the year around 900 till 1981. There, I found out how the SS moved in and why the people outside the concentration camps didn't know.

The movie "Conspiracy" is about the two people who's idea the crematoriums where.

I also wanted to know how it all started... with the "Good" Germans. Then I read : Berlin Diary 1941, a journal of Foreign Correspondent 1934-1941 by William L Shirer, American- its a good every day insight.

Perhaps you are not interested in these books, cause you know so much already. I belief after reading a hundred books on this matter and then a hundred more and after that a hundreds more that have not been written about all the horrors that have not been written about so far, we still will not know about all the horrors...

Like I said- I REALLY did not have in mind to go there... not about or for a nickel... E

edie

03-24-2010, 03:50 PM

So, the Good Germans were also the " bad Germans"? People believe what they are told at times to "be compliant and not to stand out". If you didn't live in that place at that time, to make judgements about their decisions and sympathies is ignorant too. Maybe the fear of arrest, torture and who knows what else could change their talk. Until we have the threat of execution before us, we don't know what we would say or do to save our lives. Can anyone say "waterboarding"?

... specially with a gun pointing into your face...
as American you probably would shoot back and kill each other... Europeans didn't have guns... probably heyforks for growing good food.... E

edie

03-24-2010, 04:00 PM

[QUOTE=Valley Oak;109871]Goldhagen's thesis:

Goldhagen argued that Germans possessed a unique form of antisemitism, which he called "eliminationist antisemitism", which developed over centuries prior to the 20th century.

....antisemitism is thousands of years old...

edie

03-24-2010, 04:36 PM

There was a major debate about a history book published back in the nineties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executioners) which claimed that all Germans were morally responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. It's quite an interesting and complex issue. And one apropo for consideration by the citizens of the headquarters nation for the global empire of Capitalism.

.... Gandhi said: all people who where part of WWII where morally responsible for the crimes of the war...

"Mad" Miles

03-24-2010, 05:42 PM

edie,

My response was directed at "justme", not you. That's why I quoted his little slam at the beginning of my post.

But in response to your interesting bibliography, thank you. I used the sentence, "It's an interesting and complex issue.", to indicate that it is not a topic that can be fully explored in internet bulletin board back and forth. Again, thank you for the references.

To put it as clearly as I can, anyone who says that personal privacy is a thing of the past, and in our complex society an anachronism, will get a critical response from me. Citing British public video surveillance to explain and or justify privacy's demise carries no weight with me. In fact it's evidence for the need to protect what shreds might still exist here in the country purportedly founded by revolutionaries who wanted a greater degree of democracy and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

justme, the thread was not about "looking" at Driver's Licenses. It was about scanning them into a database, correct me if I'm wrong. At least that was my understanding of the controversy. Collecting personal street addresses, dates of birth, photos, Dr. Lic. numbers and expiration dates was the issue. Not checking ID for the age requirement to purchase booze. Even if that is Safeways excuse for the procedure.

Edward/VO, hopefully people will read the entire wikipedia site, linked in my previous post, about Goldhagen and his book. It makes it abundantly clear that pretty much every professional historian, those who are experts in the period, both German and American (U.S.) considers him to have written a very bad, biased and unsubstantiated history. I only mentioned him and the renewed controversy that he sparked to highlight the debate over collective national responsibility for a generally recognized Evil.

Now, to find a new site for the Rialto. Also a vital matter of civil liberties in my biased opinion.

LenInSebastopol

03-24-2010, 08:07 PM

[quote=Valley Oak;109871]Goldhagen's thesis:
Goldhagen argued that Germans possessed a unique form of antisemitism, which he called "eliminationist antisemitism", which developed over centuries prior to the 20th century.
....antisemitism is thousands of years old...

Give me a break! Prior to Semites, there was no "anti"? Such chauvinism!
As for Goldhagen, can't say, but once read a book too! Book said something about Germans, Jews, and the empire prior to nationalism wherein all were intermarrying like crazy to the point of not knowing or caring. With the advent of the railroad travel intermarriage became all the rage. And actually the Germans did rather well at it as their population grew exponentially but were close to nothing in antisemitism compared to the Russians. The Russians were pros and strictly forbade inter marriage in every way conceivable. Then somebody made an association with Marx (Jewish) and Russians bought into that totally, along with a few other crazy notions.
If I were a college prof I would have all students read the book, much the same if I were a high school teacher and taught history all my students would read The Winds of War. The other book is by an historical economist named Niall Ferguson, The War of the World. It's about the 20th Century. A must read.

podfish

03-24-2010, 09:23 PM

... If you didn't live in that place at that time, to make judgements about their decisions and sympathies is ignorant too....
damn, you're ruining one of my favorite epithets. That's not what ignorant means...

Ted Pole

03-25-2010, 01:20 PM

Free wine from 6 til 7:30 tonight (March 25th) at the Sebastopol Center for the Arts!!!

All you have to do is stand around and look at art (in some cases it don't hurt to be likkered up).

Still, they don't scan your drivers license.

Yet.

:thumbsup::Champagne::creditcardsaccepted:artist:

"Mad" Miles

03-25-2010, 01:28 PM

justme wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccotalk/64925-safeway-scanning-drivers-licenses.html#post109873)
... If you didn't live in that place at that time, to make judgements about their decisions and sympathies is ignorant too....

damn, you're ruining one of my favorite epithets. That's not what ignorant means...

Quite right podfish, yesterday, when I read that from justme I left it because I didn't want to continue the pissing match.

But if it were true, then nobody could do history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. There's a difference between claiming to speak for a people and speaking about them while informed by their historical record.

It is a profoundly anti-intellectual claim, and represents the heighth (or should I say depth?) of ignorance.

Ignorance can be cured by education, stupidity, on the other hand, ....

There are several replies from edie in this thread that I find to be uninformed, but I've left them as they are not part of the "privacy" discussion. And as I wrote yesterday, a discussion of the Germans responsiblity for the crimes of their government prior to and during WWII is too complex to hold in this forum. Plus it's been done, over and over, in the last sixty-five years. Not much new to say now.

Also edie appears to have her heart in the right place. So why chastize her? She clearly means well.

justme on the other hand, seems ready, willing and able to defend his claims and himself. And his tendentiousness invites others, like myself, to give him the opportunity to do so.

For those reasons I only hesitated twenty-four hours to defend myself against his attack. "ludicrous" I believe was his modal term.

But he's left this little parcel of "the field" so I will as well. At least in regard to his, uh, provocations, here.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Bryan

03-25-2010, 09:04 PM

I agree with bodegahead and believe that Safeway may have an existing problem with ABC and has to do this to keep their license. There are many stings out there and Safeway may have had a problem and needed to prove their seriousness to the ABC. So the scanning is proof that the CDL was read. FYI The Plaza Liquor in Sonoma lost their license when the clerk misread a driver's license. Third offense in 20 years - no license.

The woman taking a nickle from her daughter though did not violate any ABC rules per se - in fact, a parent can pour some wine legally at home to their own kids as long as they do not get them drunk. However, the clerk could be accused of helping an adult buy liquor for a minor and the clerk has no way of proving this. The clerk should have asked for a manager to approve the purchase however to ensure to the ABC that they ensured the adult was not buying liquor for a minor.

As a disclosure, I have 2 shops and we card everyone under 30.
And many well over 30.

n4rky

03-25-2010, 10:24 PM

The woman taking a nickle from her daughter though did not violate any ABC rules per se - in fact, a parent can pour some wine legally at home to their own kids as long as they do not get them drunk. However, the clerk could be accused of helping an adult buy liquor for a minor and the clerk has no way of proving this. The clerk should have asked for a manager to approve the purchase however to ensure to the ABC that they ensured the adult was not buying liquor for a minor.

As a disclosure, I have 2 shops and we card everyone under 30.
And many well over 30.

I'm glad to have someone join this conversation who actually has to deal with the ABC. But this seems inconsistent.

How could the clerk be accused of helping an adult buy liquor for a minor? Particularly when the minor is the adult's child?

daynurse

03-25-2010, 10:31 PM

Wow! I was very surprised by the statement about offering a child wine at home. So I looked it up and, sure enough, Bryan is right. I'm not so sure about the last part of the statement (about making them drunk) unless maybe it falls under child abuse laws, which I didn't look up.
Underage Drinking: Underage Possession of Alcohol (https://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/Underage_Possession_Consumption_Internal_Possession_of_Alcohol.html)

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>
Possession is prohibited WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION(S):

• private location

• OR parent/guardian consent

• OR spouse

Notes:

California's "Any Private Location" exception excludes possession in motor vehicles. California's statute regarding possession of alcohol by a person under the age of 21 years includes an exception for "responsible adult relative" but does not specify which relatives are included. APIS interprets the phrase “responsible adult relative” as including a spouse.

ref: APIS - State Profile of Underage Drinking Laws (https://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?state=CA)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

While I was at it I learned a great deal about California laws about minors and drinking. For example, a minor can purchase alcohol for law enforcement purposes.

Frankly, I'm just as glad I didn't give my children any alcohol.

"The woman taking a nickle from her daughter though did not violate any ABC rules per se - in fact, a parent can pour some wine legally at home to their own kids as long as they do not get them drunk. "

Valley Oak

03-26-2010, 11:12 AM

Peggy, Do you think it should be illegal for parents to offer a little wine to their kids at home?

Wow! I was very surprised by the statement about offering a child wine at home. So I looked it up and, sure enough, Bryan is right. I'm not so sure about the last part of the statement (about making them drunk) unless maybe it falls under child abuse laws, which I didn't look up.
Underage Drinking: Underage Possession of Alcohol (https://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/Underage_Possession_Consumption_Internal_Possession_of_Alcohol.html)

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>
Possession is prohibited WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION(S):

• private location

• OR parent/guardian consent

• OR spouse

Notes:

California's "Any Private Location" exception excludes possession in motor vehicles. California's statute regarding possession of alcohol by a person under the age of 21 years includes an exception for "responsible adult relative" but does not specify which relatives are included. APIS interprets the phrase “responsible adult relative” as including a spouse.

ref: APIS - State Profile of Underage Drinking Laws (https://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?state=CA)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

While I was at it I learned a great deal about California laws about minors and drinking. For example, a minor can purchase alcohol for law enforcement purposes.

Frankly, I'm just as glad I didn't give my children any alcohol.

"The woman taking a nickle from her daughter though did not violate any ABC rules per se - in fact, a parent can pour some wine legally at home to their own kids as long as they do not get them drunk. "

"Mad" Miles

03-26-2010, 04:33 PM

Everybody see the above the fold article in today's PD (https://www.petaluma360.com/article/20100326/community/100329710)?

Thanks to daynurse we've been discussing the issue, directly and tangentially, for eight days. Looks like we in our community of waccobb.net are the trendsetters in these here parts! Maybe the PD should pay Barry, and the threadstarter a commission for researching stories for them?

Regarding arresting parents for giving their children alchohol, I'd like to have seen some cop try to bust my U.S. Army officer father, (West Point, Class of '46) for giving me a sip of his Schlitz from the can, after he came home from work in Colorado Springs back in the mid-sixties! That would have been a sight, a highly unlikely one given the times and circumstances. Maybe it's because his mother was French, from France, or something, that he had such poor parenting skills.

(Oh shit, I'm writing about myself again! I must be self-obsessed as charged. Or could it be that I share my own stories because I'm not violating anyone else's privacy and don't have to get permission to do so? Plus in writing about what I know, I find writing about myself is easiest and most convenient. Help! Is there a professional mental health care worker who can pass judgment on the question?)

Bwaaahhaaaaahaaaaaa! Check out Mark Morford's column today (https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/03/26/notes032610.DTL) for a more exciting explanation.

dandss1

03-26-2010, 09:18 PM

Participation in this sillyness is totally voluntary. The more you give in, the more they will take. If this had happened to me I would have left the groceries and walked away. Simply smile and tell them "Sorry, but I choose not to participate. Thank you". I guarantee the policy would change when the revenues drop off.

ChristineL

03-27-2010, 01:14 AM

I find some of the CA rules governing alcohol to be rather ridiculous (ie, a minor at the cash register must get an older person to punch in and pack an alcohol sale)...especially as it does not seem to have reduced the rate of alcholohism.

The fact I was allowed a little wine with meals at home at a young age combined with being taught about wines, and had parents who never abused alcohol, drinking held no facination for me. I could not understand why so many of my contemporaries couldn't wait to turn 18 (the legal age back then) in order to go out and drink and would actually spend their 18th birthdays doing just that. I could stay home, have a great meal, including an apperitif, some wine and and a bit of after dinner brandy and wake up feeling great the next morning. I did just that.

I'm not saying minors should be able to buy alcohol (although they do seem to find ways to get it), nor that any drinking and driving should be tolerated, just that making it so forbidden makes it much more interesting. I'm personally glad to find out that parents allowing their children a bit of wine at home is not illegal. I still find it odd that a teen-ager accompanied by parents cannot be given a bit of wine by said parents during the course of a restaurant meal.

Just my 2 cents...

In terms of the original topic...I'm no longer buying any wine at Safeway (nor would I shop anywhere that scanned my driver's license)...I've been shopping there a lot less anyway. I can't always avoid it, but I do my best to shop at stores that give their employees decent wages and benefits.

Wow! I was very surprised by the statement about offering a child wine at home. So I looked it up and, sure enough, Bryan is right. I'm not so sure about the last part of the statement (about making them drunk) unless maybe it falls under child abuse laws, which I didn't look up.
Underage Drinking: Underage Possession of Alcohol (https://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/Underage_Possession_Consumption_Internal_Possession_of_Alcohol.html)
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>
Possession is prohibited WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION(S):
• private location
• OR parent/guardian consent
• OR spouse
Notes:
California's "Any Private Location" exception excludes possession in motor vehicles. California's statute regarding possession of alcohol by a person under the age of 21 years includes an exception for "responsible adult relative" but does not specify which relatives are included. APIS interprets the phrase “responsible adult relative” as including a spouse.
ref: APIS - State Profile of Underage Drinking Laws (https://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?state=CA)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

While I was at it I learned a great deal about California laws about minors and drinking. For example, a minor can purchase alcohol for law enforcement purposes.

Frankly, I'm just as glad I didn't give my children any alcohol.

"The woman taking a nickle from her daughter though did not violate any ABC rules per se - in fact, a parent can pour some wine legally at home to their own kids as long as they do not get them drunk. "

Sciguy

03-27-2010, 01:40 AM

Valley Oak, you asked a question. I have my own answer. No, I don't think that still one more behavior should be made illegal. I think we need to get away from the mindset that begins with " there oughta' be a law" and replace it with "there ought not to be a law". Let's give up a little of our tendency toward snooping into everyone's private lives by passing all these laws expressing one group's notions of another group's behaviors and find better ways to protect people than sending in the police. If privacy is to be a positive value in our society, it might begin with our self control in that regard. I am not so naive as to imagine the power elites are ready to give up their own electronic snooping but let's not support them. Government agencies just love turning one citizen against another by making use of complainers to go sneaking over to gov't agencies to tattle on their neighbors. If you haven't been stung this way, consider yourself lucky.
Paul Palmer

Peggy, Do you think it should be illegal for parents to offer a little wine to their kids at home?

Claire

03-27-2010, 09:45 AM

Well, since we've segued onto the topic of underage drinking, I'm going to add my bit here. As we were raising our only daughter we let her taste any alcohol she wanted to try and as she got a bit older, would offer a small glass if it were something special or a holiday perhaps.

We watched to see how this was working for us all as it's a delicate balance between foisting and merely allowance. What we saw throughout her growing up was that it worked for us. There was no huge attraction to forbidden fruit. There was less hypocrisy than if we were to drink wine or beer in front of her and lecture about the evils, etc. Another aspect of this was that I wanted her to be familiar with the effects of alcohol, especially the time-delay where so many novice drinkers get into trouble by having too much before they realize it.

It is out of respect for alcohol that we raised her with the awareness. Alcohol can cause such ugly messes in all directions and yet it's de riguer in most young people's party scenes. A little familiarity can be a life saver.

Our friends had different styles with their children. One couple taught by example and never drank in front of their son. I hope that is working for them. That was their best guess according to the individuals concerned.

Another couple's son was sneaking sips from anyone's drink at gatherings as soon as he could toddle. This was an odd situation and I wonder sometimes how they worked with that. That little nipper is probably about 17 now.

Another teenager I know was never allowed a drink even though it was widely used in the household. Boy, did she get in trouble when she decided one night to raid the liquor cabinet and get drunk on apricot brandy to see what it felt like. What a scene that was!!

Every case is different and parents have a huge responsibility to their kids and sometimes part of this is to familiarize them with the consequences.

We still offer the random glass of something to our nearly grown daughter and we are rather pleased to see that she often does not finish the one serving. So for us, this was a method that seemingly worked. It might have also gone as well if we had ignored the issue, or it might have backfired, but it didn't. There's a lot to be said for following your own instincts.

Oh, and Safeway has lost our business because of the scanning bit. We usually only went in there for wine, after 9 pm, but often we would pick up other items as well. Let's see how far this gets them.

daynurse

03-27-2010, 09:41 PM

I just learned we are behind the times...Lisa Everitt wrote about this almost two years ago for industrial BNET.
Anyone know if it is illegal to destroy your magnetic strip?

Peggy

Retailers Caught in the Middle on ID Checks | BNET Retail Blog | BNET (https://industry.bnet.com/retail/1000143/retailers-caught-in-the-middle-on-id-checks/)

Retailers Caught in the Middle on ID Checks

By Lisa Everitt | Jul 18, 2008
When a clerk scans the bar code on a customer’s driver license, what data is being collected? Is it fair to make retailers the first line of defense against underage drinkers and other lawbreakers? Can the information be stolen or misused? And how do you keep entry-level employees from turning a standard request for ID into a annoyance for customers?
https://i.bnet.com/blogs/supermarket-wine.jpg (https://i.bnet.com/blogs/supermarket-wine.jpg)These and other questions came up on The Consumerist (https://consumerist.com/tag/target/?i=5025376&t=why-does-target-need-all-of-your-drivers-license-data-to-sell-you-wine) after a would-be wine purchaser wondered why Target needed his street address, eye color and organ donor status to sell him a bottle. Blogger Thruhike98 (https://thruhike98.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/target-needs-my-organ-donor-status-to-sell-me-wine/) objected when a clerk asked to see the actual license card, then quickly scanned the barcode on the reverse without asking permission:
As a rule, we don’t give out unnecessary information to anyone. We are uncomfortable with businesses’ track record when it comes to the use and protection of their customers’ personal information. We are also upset with the take-it-without-informing-us approach Target used to get this unneeded personal information.Consumerist asked “Why does Target need all of your driver’s license data to sell you wine?” And posters responded with (gasp!) the facts. Clerks have to handle the license to make sure it’s not a composite or color copy. States require scanning to ensure the data on the front matches the bar codes and mag stripe on the back. Many systems only capture the license number and birthdate.
It may not be fair — in fact, it’s hugely unfair — to make retailers de facto police, but it’s a lot easier to catch the underage consumer while purchasing than while drinking. To do that, retailers have to be threatened with a big stick: big fines, jail time, and loss of their liquor license.
Here’s the problem: The two people directly involved in an ID check have no stake in the outcome. It’s the store owner whose livelihood and reputation are at stake. Clerks just want to avoid annoying the customer. And customers just want to buy their tequila and not have their identity stolen or misused.
What’s on that bar code (https://schram.net/articles/barcode.html) or mag strip? It, too, varies by state. Some states just encode license number and date of birth. Others include the driver’s whole record (down to height, eye color, motorcycle endorsement — and sometimes Social Security number). Some states even encode your signature and mug shot. In states where it’s legal for retailers to collect all that info, some find a ready-made marketing database hard to resist.
You’re increasingly likely to get the scanner treatment if you’re purchasing canned air, spray paint, an M-rated video game, cigarettes, or cold medicine. Some banks swipe your ID when you cash a check, and some buildings do so to create nontransferable security badges. Last week, I got badged as a hospital visitor and discovered that my name is misspelled in my driver license barcode data. (It’s correct on the front. Anybody who knows how this could have happened, hit the comment button.)
I was struck by the number of posters who claimed to be Target clerks — and yet had completely different stories about how they’d been trained to do ID checks:
I worked at Target for about 9 months, and every now and again we had to do this. But we only had to this when the COMPUTER prompted us to. Chances are that cashier was on some sort of power trip.
I’ve seen Target scan driver’s licenses before for checks, but not alcohol. Maybe the cashier didn’t know what he/she was talking about and assumed they were the same system.
I work at Target and we now have to ID every single person that buys any age restricted item, whether you were born in 1924 or 1984, you’re going to have your ID checked. There is no way to override the prompt. Too many stores got caught in TABC stings and it costs the company far too much money in fines, alcohol education classes, etc.
I work at Target and this is not the best way to go about this. The POS allows you to key the date of birth when prompted for ID, and that’s the way I’ve always done it. Swiping the card is bothersome.
Even worse . . . when my boyfriend and I bought wine at Target several months ago, they not only scanned his ID but also insisted on seeing mine! Their reasoning? We were “together.”
I worked at Target for 2 years. They don’t keep any of it, it’s just so that I don’t have to go, “Okay, today is the 20th of November 2007 and you were born in 1986 so that makes you….” It’s to stop us from making mistakes. It’s a simple calculator.
The same thing happened to me buying a copy of The Witcher video game (an “M” title). I told the checkout person that I didn’t want my license scanned and she told me she couldn’t sell it without doing that, so I left.
I worked at Target. The barcode usually didn’t cooperate for me. I always swiped them for the mag strip instead.
In NY there are two bar codes on the driver’s license, one at the top and one at the bottom. The top one is a standard looking barcode (Target uses Metrologic scanners that reads this standard 3of9 codes at checkout) that has the driver’s license number and D.O.B. … I also have supplied product to Target that use the Metrologic barcode scanner so I understand their technology.
The swiping/scanning thing for restricted items is more a quality assurance issue; after all, you can mistype a number. It’s also for speed. Cashiers are graded on the speed of the transaction, and typing a number is much longer than swiping a card.
I am a cashier at Target. I am almost certain scanning your license does NOT save any information on our database; it simply confirms that the license is real, and checks that you are of age to buy alcohol (and certain drugs as well).
Just a week or two ago, Target changed its policy regarding IDs - it used to be that we only had to ID people who looked under the age of 35. If they were obviously older, we could bypass the prompt to check ID. However, we now have to ID every single time we are prompted, and we have no way to bypass the prompt.
However, most important, as far as I see, is that we do not have to scan the ID. We can also just look at the ID and enter your birthdate into the computer. Tell the cashier to do that, if you are not comfortable with us scanning the ID.The takeaway: Retailers have the legal obligation to check ID on certain purchases, and consumers have a right to know how their personal data is being collected and used. Some shoppers deface their licenses with Sharpies, stickers, and magnets (https://www.we-swipe.us/research.html) to impede the process. Retailers and their front-line employees are stuck in the middle.
Make sure your employees understand every aspect of ID verification, and use role-playing to teach them consistent, friendly, yet firm ways to deal with customers who have privacy concerns.
Image of supermarket wine (in a Monoprix in Paris) by christine592 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/christine592/1572947754/) via Flickr, cc2.0

Valley - yes, I do. Let me know your opinion after you attend an Alateen meeting.

daynurse

03-27-2010, 10:32 PM

n4rky

03-27-2010, 11:28 PM

Swiping” – Civil Code section 1798.90.1, which reads:
1798.90.1. (a) (1) Any business may swipe a driver’s license or
identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles in any
electronic device for the following purposes:
(A) To verify age or the authenticity of the driver’s license or
identification card.
(B) To comply with a legal requirement to record, retain, or
transmit that information. . . .
(2) A business may not retain or use any of the information
obtained by that electronic means for any purpose other than as
provided herein. . . .

While the ABC and others may be actively enforcing drinking age laws, I doubt anyone is actively enforcing the rest of this statute. Very often a business decision to comply or not comply with law depends on the fines involved, which is why one aspect of the recently passed health care package was a joke: the fine is only a $100 per day, when the costs of insuring someone who needs lots of expensive health care can easily exceed that. Finally, state law can be preempted by federal law, which means we're heading for an interesting conflict should the marijuana legalization initiative pass, and which also means that companies are likely to comply with any federal requests--legal, constitutional, or otherwise--regardless of state law.

I quote from Joe Conason, in It Can Happen Here:

The truly mind-boggling objective of these programs is to compile a database that includes everything about everyone--and to invent algorithms that can trace patterns to identify criminals and terrorists within the abstract universe of bits and bytes.

There is good reason to suspect that the Total Information Awareness project did not really "crash and burn . . . in late 2002." It "went into hiding." It may operate under a different name within the classified portion of the federal budget. But given the lust for domination that permeated the Bush administration and seems not to have been withdrawn by the Obama administration, I suspect it is more likely than not that the domestic spying apparatus is indeed attempting to capture this information.

And if Safeway has it, it might pass through one level of organization to get to them.

Gizmo

03-28-2010, 09:44 PM

Because of this thread, I went in yesterday to Safeway in Sebastopol. I bought a few groceries and a bottle of fine irish spirit. No problem, no scanning of driver's license, Nada. Just my experience. I am an old geezer of 61 years, but nothing. Your experience may be different ...

Andy3

03-29-2010, 08:02 AM

How, exactly, would you be contributing to the delinquency of a minor in the case stated, where Bodegahead "checked out with all kinds of groceries and 1 six pack of beer?" And how can such behavior, which is much more likely to be interpreted as an irrational attempt to impose a purist standard, be seen as "consciousness raising," particularly when even you describe it as "subtle?"

It is an Alcohol Beverage Control violation to accept money from any underage person in a transaction that contains the sale of an alcoholic beverage. Many clerks at Safeway and other stores, attend a class held at the ABC office that explains this. I owned grocery stores at one time and even though I thought some rules were unnecessary they were still followed to the letter of the law.

In my stores I would have never required any customer to scan an ID. I find this requirement unacceptable and would never allow it unless it became a legal requirement. It is the businesses responsibility to hire conscientious employees and to train them properly. The burden is on the retailer, not the customer. I hope Safeway fails in this endeavor and I hope that the independent, family owned businesses like G&G benefit from their stupidity.

ChristineL

03-29-2010, 09:45 AM

You get what you pay for. G&G pays well and treats their employees well. Safeway no longer does and the employees never know how many hours they are going to be given to work. $8.50/hr. times 26 to 34 hours a week does not make for the acquisition and maintenance of a qualified and conscientious staff. Even in these hard times, the turnover at my local Safeway is incredible...of course...they do seem to always have openings. Here, they are where you work while seeking better opportunities elsewhere unless you have been there for many years; in which case you are better paid and have more hours.

It is an Alcohol Beverage Control violation to accept money from any underage person in a transaction that contains the sale of an alcoholic beverage. Many clerks at Safeway and other stores, attend a class held at the ABC office that explains this. I owned grocery stores at one time and even though I thought some rules were unnecessary they were still followed to the letter of the law.

In my stores I would have never required any customer to scan an ID. I find this requirement unacceptable and would never allow it unless it became a legal requirement. It is the businesses responsibility to hire conscientious employees and to train them properly. The burden is on the retailer, not the customer. I hope Safeway fails in this endeavor and I hope that the independent, family owned businesses like G&G benefit from their stupidity.

n4rky

03-29-2010, 10:44 AM

It is an Alcohol Beverage Control violation to accept money from any underage person in a transaction that contains the sale of an alcoholic beverage. Many clerks at Safeway and other stores, attend a class held at the ABC office that explains this. I owned grocery stores at one time and even though I thought some rules were unnecessary they were still followed to the letter of the law.

If this is about an arcane technicality, what about the technicality that the daughter handed the nickel to her parent, and the clerk would have been accepting the nickel from the parent? The direct transaction would have been perfectly acceptable. But this is about an indirect transaction for an insignificant portion of a much larger transaction that merely included alcohol but was not even mostly alcohol.

The state interest served in applying this regulation in this way seems far more likely to be the accumulation of data than it is to be the protection of a minor.

Valley Oak

03-29-2010, 10:50 AM

Andy3

03-29-2010, 11:17 AM

The solution I was looking for while I was in business was to have all persons that sell alcoholic beverages be licensed by ABC. They should be required to pass a test. If they violate the law THEIR license should face suspension or revocation. If they screw up too often then they lose their job and rightfully so. Today, if a clerk sells to a minor they can be fined but the real penalty goes to the liquor license holder. Even if the store owner is diligent, provides training and counseling they are still responsible. More of that responsibility should lie with the clerk making the transaction.

On a side note, if a clerk wants to make sure they are never caught in a sting they need to ask every customer that buys liquor or tobacco if they are over 21/18. A sting employee is not allowed to lie. This will protect them from the sting but not necessarily protect society from underage drinkers.

ChristineL

03-29-2010, 11:34 AM

I agree...but again...that would require that clerks be paid more than $8.50/hr and get to work full-time if they want. I sure would not take on that much responsible for such poor wages.

The solution I was looking for while I was in business was to have all persons that sell alcoholic beverages be licensed by ABC. They should be required to pass a test. If they violate the law THEIR license should face suspension or revocation. If they screw up too often then they lose their job and rightfully so. Today, if a clerk sells to a minor they can be fined but the real penalty goes to the liquor license holder. Even if the store owner is diligent, provides training and counseling they are still responsible. More of that responsibility should lie with the clerk making the transaction.

On a side note, if a clerk wants to make sure they are never caught in a sting they need to ask every customer that buys liquor or tobacco if they are over 21/18. A sting employee is not allowed to lie. This will protect them from the sting but not necessarily protect society from underage drinkers.

Andy3

03-29-2010, 11:46 AM

I agree...but again...that would require that clerks be paid more than $8.50/hr and get to work full-time if they want. I sure would not take on that much responsible for such poor wages.

I left the industry in 1990. At that time I was paying checkers around $14.00 per hour. Most were full time and had a full array of benefits, including a low deductible, 100% employer paid health care package. In todays inflated dollars that would equate to around 40k a year or more without taking the benefits into consideration.

I have changed industries and have not kept abreast of what wages and benefits are. I know that the chain stores like to keep their employees part time to get out of health benefits but had no idea that they have driven their pay scale so low. We had a 2 tier pay scale for general clerks that didn't handle money and regular clerks that did. It boggles my mind that retail clerk wages have fallen that significantly.

Here is a pay scale I found from a contract with UFCW Union and Stater Bros.

Rates
1
0-520
$8.15
$8.40
$8.40
2
521-1040
$8.35
$8.60
$8.60
3
1041-1560
$8.55
$8.80
$8.80
4
1561-2080
$8.75
$9.00
$9.00
5
2081-2600
$8.95
$9.20
$9.20
6
2601-3120
$9.15
$9.40
$9.40
7
3121-3640
$9.35
$9.60
$9.60
8
3641-4160
$9.55
$9.80
$9.80
9
4161-4680
$9.75
$10.00
$10.00
10
4681-5200
$9.95
$10.20
$10.20
11
5201-5720
$10.20
$10.45
$10.45
12
5721-6240
$10.45
$10.70
$10.70
13
6241-6760
$10.70
$10.95
$10.95
14
6761-7280
$10.95
$11.20
$11.20
15
7281-7800
$11.20
$11.45
$11.45
16
7801-8320
$11.45
$11.70
$11.70
17
8321-8840
$11.70
$11.95
$11.95
18
8841-9360
$11.95
$12.45
$12.45
19
9361-9880
$12.35
$12.85
$12.85
20
9881 thereafter
$12.75
$13.25
$13.60
Dept. Head
$13.85
$14.35
$14.70

The number like 9881 is hours in the industry. An experienced Journeyman clerk would receive $13.60 per hour. Beginning wage is $8.15 per hour.

The clerk wages have slipped a lot in the past 20 years but $13.60 an hour isn't awful in todays economy. If they have health care and retirement on top of that it's worth being attentive and conscientious about your job.

daynurse

03-29-2010, 12:15 PM

My math may be rusty but here goes. 1 bedroom places or studios rent for $1500 a month on the average. That would be 22 days of 8 hours a day. 5 and a half days a week.
So, to pay for taxes, social security, disability, utilities, food, health care, transportation, etc would require the person to work the other 8 days left in the month.
Or, maybe they can walk to the homeless shelter out by the Humane Society after work.
Peggy

You get what you pay for. G&G pays well and treats their employees well. Safeway no longer does and the employees never know how many hours they are going to be given to work. $8.50/hr. times 26 to 34 hours a week does not make for the acquisition and maintenance of a qualified and conscientious staff.

"Mad" Miles

03-29-2010, 12:31 PM

I had no idea that G&G was a local, family owned operation. I am strongly inclined to buy there from now on. My problem is that I live just outside east Santa Rosa and I have to travel to the other side of the city to get to G&G.

G&G should advertise the fact that they are a local, family owned business. They would get a lot more support from Sonomans that way, especially in light of what Safeway is doing.

Edward/VO,

When I lived in Rincon Valley for four years, '00-'04, I shopped at Oliver's on Montecito. Their prices aren't as low as G&G, but they were more convenient to me, have a great selection, great service and a friendly staff. They're "local" in that I think there are three Oliver's Markets? (West Santa Rosa at 12 and Fulton, the newest, Cotati/Rohnert Park, and the Rincon Valley one.) I don't know about wages, unionisation and working conditions at Oliver's Markets. If G&G has significantly improved their selection, and I lived in west Santa Rosa, I might shop there. I've also been impressed by the prices and selection at Rosa's Markets, my favorite taqueria is in the one on Petaluma Hills Road.

But I find my tastes for top quality, preferably organic and highly varied foodstuffs, plus access to imports from various ethnic cultures, send me to Pacific Market (Sebasto, where I shopped my first five years living here, just down the road from my dad and brother's place) for the selection and variety, certainly not the prices, and Speers, since it's just up River Road on Mirabel from me, for the basics.

My point in going into all this detail, aside from recommending Oliver's to you, (perhaps you already shop there?) is to illustrate that where we shop is a combination of convenience, price, quality, staff attitude, worker's rights, environmental awareness and personal taste, just to name a few categories of concern, I'm sure there're a couple more I've spaced.

On other threads I've emphasized why I won't shop at Whole Foods; greenwashing, corporate arrogance, excessive pricing, union-busting and the overall creepy feeling of being conned by an operation that on the surface claims to be one thing, but after even a little examination turns out to be the opposite.

Safeway is a big corporation with everything the oil based corporate agriculture and other food industies can supply. I'd still go there if I needed something after everywhere else is closed. That doesn't really happen in my life. I used to give them credit for negotiating with their employees union, but I suppose with the results of decades of down-sizing they've gotten a free hand to squeeze the workers for everything they can wring out of them. Same as it ever was...

Perhaps Pacific, Oliver's, G&G, FoodMax (did they close down? I think I recall that) do the same thing but put a happier face on it, at least Pacific and Oliver's do.

If I were shopping for a bigger group than myself, and did most of my own cooking, which I don't, yet, my 75% pay cut hasn't hit home, yet...) I would probably shop at Costco!

I hope the ID scanning bites the dust. Whether the data is retained and shared with the forces of order, or not, it's a bad precedent that should be nipped in the bud.

There was a pretty good interview on Slate.com last month, with the author of a book about John Poindexter and the other architects of TIA (Total Information Awareness) under Bush I.

For students of our national and international surveillance culture, it's worth a read. Not so much for any new factual information about the technology and politics, but for an insight into the personalities and power struggles behind all that.

Debating The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State (https://www.slate.com/id/2244908/entry/2244909/)

In Forestville