On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:25:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> I don't think it's a matter of recording it or not.
> 
> If they don't record your name or address, then the ID isn't needed to
> do what you're doing. Just proof of age. They're using the card not to
> identify you, but to determine your age. They haven't identified you if
> 5 seconds after they look at your ID they don't remember your name, any
> more than they've already identified you by looking at your face.

Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at 
stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment 
call).

>  > To issue a state ID,
>> you have to prove who you are - without that proof, the ID is
>> meaningless and the state won't issue it.
> 
> Oh, well, sure. But you don't have to prove who you are to buy alcohol.
> You only have to prove how old you are. You don't have to prove who you
> are to drive - you only have to prove you have a driver license. 

But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo ID), 
then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person using 
the ID.  So you do have to prove who you are in order for the ID to be 
useful.  I couldn't use my wife's ID to prove that I'm her age any more 
than she could use mine to prove that she's my age.

> In
> practice, nobody is going to issue a photo ID with only your age on it
> and not your name and address, but the *law* doesn't say you have to
> provide ID. But if a state issued ID with just your picture and your
> birthday, you could buy beer with that. And other IDs can be used
> instead. (I can imagine, for example, a grocery near a college taking
> college ID with a photo as proof of age to buy beer.)
> 
> Contrast with, say, immigration control, where you actually *do* have to
> prove who you are.  Or (getting back to the original point) countries
> where the police can ask you at any time to prove your identity.

Like Arizona. <scnr>

Jim

Post a reply to this message