On 11/23/2020 12:43 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> ~misfit~ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Storing on-line isn't the best idea in my opinion. These are copies of
>> documents that can be used to prove identification so should be kept
>> very securely.
>
> No matter where you store the file, it is someone else's personal and
> private data, so you should encrypt it. Once encrypted, who is going to
> see it if the file is on a CD/DVD, USB HDD, USB flash drive, or online?
> Um, just how is this user going to secure a scanned and printed copy of
> their customers' driver license? In a file behind the front desk that
> anyone can access? A paper hardcopy is hardly secure. No way to
> encrypt that. Anyone can access a paper copy: unscrupulous employees,
> anyone wandering behind the front desk (even when it is closed you can
> just hop over the desk), and I've yet to see the front desk using
> lockable filing drawers or have good locks on them (a large square shaft
> screwdriver and crescent wrench will make short work of those crappy
> locks, anyway, and the employees know where is the key).
>
> The OP didn't say where is the hotel.
I thought I mentioned "A friend of mine is a small hotel owner in
Florida "? I don't know if it got truncated when getting to this group.
I've heard some EU states are
> obligated to send a record of your presence to the police. See
> http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/how-europes-hotels-became-spies-for-law-enfocement-agencies-and-the-nsa/.
> Ain't the EU oh-so wonderful. Happens in my country, too, but I'm not
> sure they scan or take a pic of my driver license. I have seen them
> write down the ID number on the registration card.
>
> Also of note is that is may be illegal to copy and retain a driver
> license at its original size (something to do with providing a source
> for forging the ID). So, the printed copy has to get enlarged, which
> means the OP will still need to use the cheaper choice of 8.5x11" paper.
>
>> For the same reason I don't think it's wise to take a pic "with your
>> smartphone" (a lot of which automatically back up to 'the cloud').
>
> Of the smartphones that I've owned, all of them have the option to NOT
> copy photos to some cloud storage. In fact, as I recall, I had to
> lookup the setting to enable auto cloud sync with the phone. I don't
> auto-upload any pics taken with my phone. I don't want to waste the
> storage quota in my online account on what are likely trivial or
> transitory photos. If I want to save the photos off my phone, I use
> Bluetooth or a USB cable to my desktop PC.
>
>> Not just that but they're prone to damage or loss.
>
> Not if the phone were only used for taking pics. Just because it's a
> phone doesn't mean you have to use it that way. Doesn't take much
> quality for a camera to snap a photo of a driver license. You can get
> discarded working cell phones with cameras for cheap at the Goodwill.
> Or dig out the old one you stuffed in a drawer when you moved to a new
> phone.
>
> If you don't have a data plan and the wifi radio is disabled, how are
> photos getting off that phone? No one will have access to them except
> whomever can access the phone, just like whomever can access your filing
> drawer, or your desktop PC, or whatever else you use.
>
>> If pics rather than scans are to be used then I would suggest a
>> dedicated camera for the job.
>
> Some desk jockey fumbling around to fish a camera out of a drawer to
> take a pic of your driver license is just as likely as to drop a phone.
> One advantage I see is you can get some rather boob-level point-n-shoot
> camera, so the desk jockey doesn't have to figure out how to take a
> photo. The OP is unclear just how big is his friend's hotel. Rather
> than spending money on a digital camera, his friend probably already has
> a smartphone. After all, the focus is on pinching pennies as hard as
> possible. If the OP cannot afford a sheet of 8.5x11" paper per print of
> a driver license, how is the OP going to afford getting any camera?
>
> It's possible the OP has an old digital camera collecting dust in a
> drawer that he could use to take snapshots of driver licenses. More
> likely is the OP has a smart phone with a camera. The OP still has to
> get the info to the police, so how secure is that process?
>
> Since the idea is to get the task done as cheaply as possible, I don't
> see using paper and ink is the best choice, especially if this info is
> to get transferred to the police. First see what the OP has for digital
> storage. Does the scanner save to a file instead of printer? If so,
> there are lots of ways to encrypt that data. Does the OP have a spare
> cell phone with camera? Well, without a data plan or wifi enabled,
> those pics aren't going anywhere except via Bluetooth or USB cable.
> Maybe the OP does have a spare digital camera. In either case, the
> point was to replace scanner, paper, and ink with a camera whether it be
> a dedicated camera or one in a smart phone.
>
> Not sure why the OP even has to scan the driver license or take photos
> of it. Customers fill out a registration card, or the desk jockey does
> it, and they simply transcribe the driver ID info to the card (and then
> somehow get a copy to the police since that would be the only reason for
> the OP's declaration of "legally required").
The issue is hotel owner is not tech-savvy. Hence, he feels more
comfortable with paper copies of customer's information. I agree it is
LOT cheaper to just keep a scanned copy until it is needed.
>
> What seems incongruous is the OP is looking for the cheapest way to
> record driver ID info, but the OP also says the hotel is down due to
> COVID. If the hotel is down, no one is staying there, so no need to
> record driver IDs. We respondents might've gotten had.
>
The hotel's business is down this year, like most hotels, but the hotel
owner expects to revive or get more customers in summer of next year.
This group has lot of helpful people and I appreciate their advice.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.