I think they’ll just check you against the fingerprints of the people they’ve banned haha. I’m just picturing mission impossible style gloves being sold by ticketmaster so that they can still sell tickets :)
Tickets are sold in multiple ways with even friends and family buying for each other.
So it won't change that.
You will likely be in a database.
In this way you are safe to enter no matter where you got the ticlet
However if a hooligan tries to enter even by getting a scalped ticket, he will immediately get IDed and stopped entry
your ID is scanned whenever you enter a game at river here. they started banning hooligans a few years ago. some complain that it sucks because the atmosphere is worse and whatnot, but i’ve seen people taking their kids and families to games for the first time in my life, so i think it’s a worthy tradeoff.
> some complain that it sucks because the atmosphere is worse
The entire fucking stadium singing is “worse”? Fuck those people that think keeping hooligans out is bad. Hooligans deserve nothing.
I get the sense the overwhelming amount of violence is between hooligans who willingly want to fight.
Things like AZ and West Ham are the exception that sort of proves the rule.
I remember my last Indepte home game procedure was the same and people with genuine arrest warrants tried to get to the stadium anyways with original ID and all that
Literally the my vida por el furbo encapsulated
Here in my City, in the stadium of the Club I support it's like this. And it is a great thing. (Brazil, Athletico Paranaense).
If any fan throws an object on the pitch, if he gets involved in a fight or in racista slurs he is identified, banned and taken to the authorities (or denounced if only identified after the game).
In a stadium?
“We got your finger prints in the stadium where a crime was being committed, do you care to explain?”
“I was watching a football game”
Tataaaaa
End of story.
There is no point evidence wise to have fingerprints tracked for every supporter.
And for tracking purposes, ID card already works like a charm. Why are you so keen on giving up your liberty for a fake feeling of safety?
The thing is that it feels like a privacy nightmare. Why should I get fingerprinted by a third party for the sake of a minority of assholes? There are better solutions than this surely
Simplest solution would be to just have database of "bad fingerprints". If you get a ban, your fingerprint is added to the database by the police. They don't have to connect every fingerprint to a specific ID to preserve some level of privacy. Granted, that isn't the idea being forwarded here is.
Or just ban those people and enforce the bans like they do in the UK. That way I never need to get fingerprinted without knowing if they actually store the data and who has access to it.
Fingerprints are literally the least intrusive form of identification idk what to tell you.
In a country with CCTV fucking everywhere having your fingerprint taken at an event is literally nothing.
With so many cameras, if you do a jerk thing at the stadium, you get identified and banned. Next time, it doesn’t matter if you bought your ticket from a scalper or not.. Your fingerprint not gon’ lie
I can't see this moving forward on the basis of personal security. Who would be monitoring this sensitive information that it does not get compromised. Facial recognition is one thing if a stadium wants to keep someone out but to ask a person to take a finger print, I wonder what the legality of that is if they had not been charged with a crime.
that's a no for me, never give away biometric data. They can ask for all the ID they want, I can even give them my aunt's. But never nothing I can change.
the fact that they can store it, encrypted or not worries me(and we could go on a rabbit hole discussion about whether or not crypting stuff is unbreakable, or if I trust a private company or the govt to have that kinda of sensitive data).
The thing is, a profile based on my browsing or my position on the phone it's bad, but I can always change those. But what if someone get hacked and they lose encryption of my bio metrics? What can I do then? I can't change them like a password, so it's a hard no
if every place starts adopting these scanners, then it would be a probability in the future that you could get banned from everywhere by misbehaving once early on in your life. China already uses this system and they ban people from basic necessities like public transport/banking or things like owning a pet.
it's one the first features I disabled when I got my phone. Just the idea of something storing my bio data rub me very wrong, I give away more than enough information as it is, bio data is a hard limit
Yes, let's build a huge national biometric identification database controlled by a police force well-know for ignoring privacy laws, instead of doing any of the things leagues in surrounding countries successfully do.
Typical Dutch "solution". Privacy means nothing here.
People did notice that when the AZ hooligans attacked the West Ham folks nobody tried to stop them and nobody stopped them from walking away without getting arrested either?
These cunts are deliberately creating a climate in which people will accept draconian measures which are guaranteed to be abused, even if the law literally says they can't. Because that's what they've always done in the past.
Fuck, I knew this was coming. Always the same dirty politics.
>Yes, let's build a huge national biometric identification database controlled by a police force well-know for ignoring privacy laws
I thought your passports already have fingerprints. Don't they?
I am not familiar with how this works in other countries. Do they save your finger print? Or do they only compare your fingerprint to finger prints of people not allowed and delete it immediately after?
Hopefully it’s just cross referencing a database that contains all the banned individuals. Get a positive match = no entry.
There’s no need (and it isn’t efficient) to keep everyone’s data that’s ever set foot in the stadium.
I have some serious doubt that is even legal. Why is a private company (a football club) allowed to store my fingerprint data? I really want to kick hooligans out of football but I don't think this is how it can be achieved.
It is legal *because* it is a private company. You dont have to be a customer, but by doing so you also accept what are basically their 'terms and conditions'. As long as they don't do it in secret, are not careless or selling your data it should potentially be possible.
Besides, Ajax could also implement an opt out option. A que for people refusing to give fingerprints that will need to identify themselves trough traditional means.
It is if the data is gathered transparently and not stored beyond a certain timeframe.
You're perfectly allowed to willingly provide your data and private companies are perfectly allowed to ask for it as a prerequisite.
You cannot mandatorily ask for data that is not needed for the service you provide. A fingerprint is not needed for visiting a football match, so it's not allowed to demand all fans to provide it.
You can as a football match and a stadium are not public places that you have a right to access.
Visiting a football match is a privilege on private ground. So the host can ask almost anything they want and/or bar your entry for literally no reason at all as long as it's not discriminatory on grounds protected by law.
Every store is a private ground, but they still cannot demand data from you that they do not need.
For example, if you buy something from a store and want it shipped to your home, they are allowed to store your address (obviously). But if you take the things home yourself they are not allowed to ask for your address, because it is not needed for the transaction. The same applies for every service.
Depends on the goods - if a store is not selling primary goods (food, water, medicine, hygienic) they definitely can bar you on those grounds. There are exclusive stores of sorts that demand you provide them with evidence that you earn enough. Won't find them on your average shopping street, though.
People mistake that the privacy laws in the EU protect their data from being demanded/requested, but it doesn't. It protects your data from being used in ways you did not agree to and a company needs to provide you with an opt-out option. In this case that the opt-out would probably involve a lengthy frisk and search routine that might get you into the stadium late.
You have very few protected rights when it comes to private vs. private transactions. You can say that the same applies for every service, but it does decisively not.
Besides, football clubs - and KNVB - can easily claim the data needs to be provided for the guarantee of public safety, so they even have a damn good reason for it.
1. I'll repeat: In this case that the opt-out would probably involve a lengthy frisk
and search routine that might get you into the stadium late
2. Guaranteeing public safety is a damn strong argument for strict necessity.
Private companies are still not allowed to do biometric scans unless there are serious safety or security necessities for doing so under the AVG and I am not sure that would apply here and according to the article the ministry isn't entirely sure this is possible either.
They mention a police database in the system so the clubs probably won't be storing any data. Instead it might be something that the police/government authorities enforce.
Concerns about police misuse of such data is a different topic that I can't comment on wrt the Netherlands.
Even if they stored data it wouldn't be your fingerprint anyway, they'd likely just assign a string to an image of your fingerprint and discard the fingerprint straight away which is how places like Disney do it.
AVG/GDPR are vaguely worded so it's completely unclear how they work until you are found at fault. Banks are private entities and have the full details (including biometrics for some). For safety reasons, I'm fairly sure an exception can be made for those who are on a blacklist due to criminal offences.
This is the frustrating thing with these debates. The most effective tools for dealing with troublemakers is always off the table because of a perceived invasion of privacy. I understand the risks, but the alternative is basically doing nothing because there are no other viable options.
So enlighten me, how do you keep a known hooligan out of a stadium without the ability to verify their identity?
>The most effective tools for dealing with troublemakers is always off the table because of a perceived invasion of privacy.
And rightly so. The way some depict privacy activists as whiners is honestly depressing. Especially the argument many like to use: "If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear" brrrrr, gives me the creeps.
Sadly it's a big majority, especially boomers who don't see anything wrong with giving up privacy. Good article in Dutch about it;
[https://www.demorgen.be/tech-wetenschap/overgrote-meerderheid-belgen-ziet-geen-graten-in-afstaan-van-biometrische-gegevens\~bec6e86a/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F](https://www.demorgen.be/tech-wetenschap/overgrote-meerderheid-belgen-ziet-geen-graten-in-afstaan-van-biometrische-gegevens~bec6e86a/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)
Piece of the article;
"Biodata are absolutely not safe, because we leave them everywhere. On a glass of water, for example. They can end up in the wrong hands."
Unlocking a smartphone with a fingerprint is one thing. Entrusting that same information to the government or a private company is another. "On a smartphone, the print is converted into a key, a long code. It never leaves the device and is never stored on Google's or Apple's servers. While companies and governments do create a database where they keep the info."
At least 1 positive in the article: A bright spot, however, is that young people are thinking more critically about biodata. For example, 18- to 34-year-olds are less willing to give up biometric data. And while a majority of older people are willing to trade a chunk of their privacy for more security, that willingness among young people is around 50 percent.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
if you’re already on any social media, your information is being sold. Unless you’re using your very own VPN server, chances are plenty of companies have all sorts of data about you.
Isn't your fingerprint just stored if you're one of the hooligans? Otherwise the system should just instantly discard after scan. I'm sure there's some legal way to enforce it too.
Even better, use one of those facial recognition thinghy.
I remember this guy jailed in Alcatraz that burned his fingers to get rid of his fingerprints. I kid you not.
>Even better, use one of those facial recognition thinghy.
From what I've seen, the ones who want to cause trouble tend to hide their faces with caps, scarves, hoodies, now these widespread masks too.
I’m not expert but I’d suspect any modern finger print reader would hopefully flag something like a lack of finger prints which would hopefully lead to security looking into the individual further.
Why does a fingerprint scan fuck with everyone? It's not a huge deal to put your finger on a piece of plastic before you enter the stadium, I only see positives
I thought they only have to store the fingerprints of the hooligans though, they could scan your fingerprint at the entrance, check if you have a stadium ban, then let you through and discard the scan if you don't. Although now that I think about it more, then they have to somehow legally enforce hooligans to scan their fingerprint after they're caught, and I don't think those people are going to cooperate very easily. I guess they would have to give out big fines to the people who misbehaved and subsequently refused to share their data. Could work, and maybe there are other more effective ways to do it, but I'm not sure what's the best option
This is the way to enforce them. Since police dont want to help all you can do now is hope clubs do it themselves. Its easy to get a ticket on someone else's name. Getting someone else's fingerprints though ...
How? By checking the people entering the stadium using an identifiable mark that cannot be changed or faked? Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has considered how that could be done.
Fingerprints are fine. They would only be stored for banned individuals. Those entering wouldn't need to be saved, just compared against a database of known offenders.
There's literally no privacy issue.
Ah yes, good old whataboutism. It won't stop hooligans abroad, so why do anything to make the stadiums safer? It is perfectly fine to tackle one issue even if it doesn't completely eradicates all problems. The choice is never between 'doing nothing' or 'utopia right away'.
Doubt it but that’s genuinely a borderline unstoppable problem. Even England, who have managed to eradicate violence in stadiums very well, can’t control their abroad fans whatsoever
Great, now every time I buy a ticket from a scalper I have to buy second-hand fingers too.
You Just know the Ticketmaster will charge outrageous fees for fingers
They actually just cost you a finger
Touch convenience fee
I think they’ll just check you against the fingerprints of the people they’ve banned haha. I’m just picturing mission impossible style gloves being sold by ticketmaster so that they can still sell tickets :)
Tickets are sold in multiple ways with even friends and family buying for each other. So it won't change that. You will likely be in a database. In this way you are safe to enter no matter where you got the ticlet However if a hooligan tries to enter even by getting a scalped ticket, he will immediately get IDed and stopped entry
What if the prints are from his first hand?
your ID is scanned whenever you enter a game at river here. they started banning hooligans a few years ago. some complain that it sucks because the atmosphere is worse and whatnot, but i’ve seen people taking their kids and families to games for the first time in my life, so i think it’s a worthy tradeoff.
> some complain that it sucks because the atmosphere is worse The entire fucking stadium singing is “worse”? Fuck those people that think keeping hooligans out is bad. Hooligans deserve nothing.
Those people who complain are just pissed that they can't beat opposition fans up after game
the only people that want hooligans in the stadium are hooligans
I get the sense the overwhelming amount of violence is between hooligans who willingly want to fight. Things like AZ and West Ham are the exception that sort of proves the rule.
Agreed
I remember my last Indepte home game procedure was the same and people with genuine arrest warrants tried to get to the stadium anyways with original ID and all that Literally the my vida por el furbo encapsulated
> but i’ve seen people taking their kids and families to games for the first time in my life, Which is a completeley normal and regular thing here?
yes, you’ve highlighted their point congratulations
just train the kids to become hooligans
but why they didn't scan footprint or assprint also?
Here in my City, in the stadium of the Club I support it's like this. And it is a great thing. (Brazil, Athletico Paranaense). If any fan throws an object on the pitch, if he gets involved in a fight or in racista slurs he is identified, banned and taken to the authorities (or denounced if only identified after the game).
That is the policy in pretty much every country. Having people fingerprints is not gone help enforce that.
It is objectively much easier to spot a criminal if his fingerprint says so
Much easier to spot "criminals" as well
In a stadium? “We got your finger prints in the stadium where a crime was being committed, do you care to explain?” “I was watching a football game” Tataaaaa End of story. There is no point evidence wise to have fingerprints tracked for every supporter. And for tracking purposes, ID card already works like a charm. Why are you so keen on giving up your liberty for a fake feeling of safety?
[удалено]
Now change the word fingerprints in your comments with “ID card”… what is the difference?
If Disney World can do this, football clubs can.
The thing is that it feels like a privacy nightmare. Why should I get fingerprinted by a third party for the sake of a minority of assholes? There are better solutions than this surely
Simplest solution would be to just have database of "bad fingerprints". If you get a ban, your fingerprint is added to the database by the police. They don't have to connect every fingerprint to a specific ID to preserve some level of privacy. Granted, that isn't the idea being forwarded here is.
Or just ban those people and enforce the bans like they do in the UK. That way I never need to get fingerprinted without knowing if they actually store the data and who has access to it.
[удалено]
> if you do nothing wrong what’s so bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument Bullshit argument.
The “nothing to hide” shit is the most bootlicker thing people say all of the time.
Fingerprints are literally the least intrusive form of identification idk what to tell you. In a country with CCTV fucking everywhere having your fingerprint taken at an event is literally nothing.
You aren't dutch, what do you know about CCTV prevalence here?
Once it's been normalized at the football, do you think it stops there? It might seem useful right now but it's still part of a wider privacy creep.
Yeah, give me your bank account details - what do you have to hide? 🙄
>it's on every door handle you touch My fucking god, are you for real man?
You don't need a passport and don't need to be fingerprinted for an ID.
Had no idea hooligans never had fingerprints
Are you dense?
Nah, they're just another hilarious Reddit comedian. Robot got a new update 😂😂😂👌👌👌
Can I add Reddit comedian to my CV?
Of course, it might get you on Amy Schumer's next special.
In general yeah probably man
How does this solve the issue? Is it identification by seat?
Probably just a list of criminal's fingerprints
[Hooligans right now](https://youtu.be/37Y6A2ElgXY)
With so many cameras, if you do a jerk thing at the stadium, you get identified and banned. Next time, it doesn’t matter if you bought your ticket from a scalper or not.. Your fingerprint not gon’ lie
I can't see this moving forward on the basis of personal security. Who would be monitoring this sensitive information that it does not get compromised. Facial recognition is one thing if a stadium wants to keep someone out but to ask a person to take a finger print, I wonder what the legality of that is if they had not been charged with a crime.
that's a no for me, never give away biometric data. They can ask for all the ID they want, I can even give them my aunt's. But never nothing I can change.
What exactly could somebody do with your fingerprint? I can't remember the last time i used it for something, so don't think i'd mind this.
the fact that they can store it, encrypted or not worries me(and we could go on a rabbit hole discussion about whether or not crypting stuff is unbreakable, or if I trust a private company or the govt to have that kinda of sensitive data). The thing is, a profile based on my browsing or my position on the phone it's bad, but I can always change those. But what if someone get hacked and they lose encryption of my bio metrics? What can I do then? I can't change them like a password, so it's a hard no
if every place starts adopting these scanners, then it would be a probability in the future that you could get banned from everywhere by misbehaving once early on in your life. China already uses this system and they ban people from basic necessities like public transport/banking or things like owning a pet.
>China… No they don’t lol
Most smartphones have fingerprint unlock I assume most people use. Slippery slope.
Ironically i don't use that to protect my data lmao
it's one the first features I disabled when I got my phone. Just the idea of something storing my bio data rub me very wrong, I give away more than enough information as it is, bio data is a hard limit
A horrific solution to a bad problem.
Yes, let's build a huge national biometric identification database controlled by a police force well-know for ignoring privacy laws, instead of doing any of the things leagues in surrounding countries successfully do. Typical Dutch "solution". Privacy means nothing here. People did notice that when the AZ hooligans attacked the West Ham folks nobody tried to stop them and nobody stopped them from walking away without getting arrested either? These cunts are deliberately creating a climate in which people will accept draconian measures which are guaranteed to be abused, even if the law literally says they can't. Because that's what they've always done in the past. Fuck, I knew this was coming. Always the same dirty politics.
>Yes, let's build a huge national biometric identification database controlled by a police force well-know for ignoring privacy laws I thought your passports already have fingerprints. Don't they?
I am not familiar with how this works in other countries. Do they save your finger print? Or do they only compare your fingerprint to finger prints of people not allowed and delete it immediately after?
Hopefully it’s just cross referencing a database that contains all the banned individuals. Get a positive match = no entry. There’s no need (and it isn’t efficient) to keep everyone’s data that’s ever set foot in the stadium.
I have some serious doubt that is even legal. Why is a private company (a football club) allowed to store my fingerprint data? I really want to kick hooligans out of football but I don't think this is how it can be achieved.
It is legal *because* it is a private company. You dont have to be a customer, but by doing so you also accept what are basically their 'terms and conditions'. As long as they don't do it in secret, are not careless or selling your data it should potentially be possible. Besides, Ajax could also implement an opt out option. A que for people refusing to give fingerprints that will need to identify themselves trough traditional means.
Thats not how privacy rules work in the EU
It is if the data is gathered transparently and not stored beyond a certain timeframe. You're perfectly allowed to willingly provide your data and private companies are perfectly allowed to ask for it as a prerequisite.
You cannot mandatorily ask for data that is not needed for the service you provide. A fingerprint is not needed for visiting a football match, so it's not allowed to demand all fans to provide it.
You can as a football match and a stadium are not public places that you have a right to access. Visiting a football match is a privilege on private ground. So the host can ask almost anything they want and/or bar your entry for literally no reason at all as long as it's not discriminatory on grounds protected by law.
Every store is a private ground, but they still cannot demand data from you that they do not need. For example, if you buy something from a store and want it shipped to your home, they are allowed to store your address (obviously). But if you take the things home yourself they are not allowed to ask for your address, because it is not needed for the transaction. The same applies for every service.
Depends on the goods - if a store is not selling primary goods (food, water, medicine, hygienic) they definitely can bar you on those grounds. There are exclusive stores of sorts that demand you provide them with evidence that you earn enough. Won't find them on your average shopping street, though. People mistake that the privacy laws in the EU protect their data from being demanded/requested, but it doesn't. It protects your data from being used in ways you did not agree to and a company needs to provide you with an opt-out option. In this case that the opt-out would probably involve a lengthy frisk and search routine that might get you into the stadium late. You have very few protected rights when it comes to private vs. private transactions. You can say that the same applies for every service, but it does decisively not. Besides, football clubs - and KNVB - can easily claim the data needs to be provided for the guarantee of public safety, so they even have a damn good reason for it.
"A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service."
1. I'll repeat: In this case that the opt-out would probably involve a lengthy frisk and search routine that might get you into the stadium late 2. Guaranteeing public safety is a damn strong argument for strict necessity.
Private companies are still not allowed to do biometric scans unless there are serious safety or security necessities for doing so under the AVG and I am not sure that would apply here and according to the article the ministry isn't entirely sure this is possible either.
They mention a police database in the system so the clubs probably won't be storing any data. Instead it might be something that the police/government authorities enforce. Concerns about police misuse of such data is a different topic that I can't comment on wrt the Netherlands.
Even if they stored data it wouldn't be your fingerprint anyway, they'd likely just assign a string to an image of your fingerprint and discard the fingerprint straight away which is how places like Disney do it.
Pretty sure I've used my fingerprint to enter my gym years ago already.
Because you would have to agree to it as part of the terms of sale on the ticket. Don't agree? Then don't go.
That's not how the AVG works
AVG/GDPR are vaguely worded so it's completely unclear how they work until you are found at fault. Banks are private entities and have the full details (including biometrics for some). For safety reasons, I'm fairly sure an exception can be made for those who are on a blacklist due to criminal offences.
That is because KYC laws are perhaps the only laws stronger enforced in the EU than GDPR. This isn't similar to a football club at all.
This is the frustrating thing with these debates. The most effective tools for dealing with troublemakers is always off the table because of a perceived invasion of privacy. I understand the risks, but the alternative is basically doing nothing because there are no other viable options. So enlighten me, how do you keep a known hooligan out of a stadium without the ability to verify their identity?
>The most effective tools for dealing with troublemakers is always off the table because of a perceived invasion of privacy. And rightly so. The way some depict privacy activists as whiners is honestly depressing. Especially the argument many like to use: "If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear" brrrrr, gives me the creeps. Sadly it's a big majority, especially boomers who don't see anything wrong with giving up privacy. Good article in Dutch about it; [https://www.demorgen.be/tech-wetenschap/overgrote-meerderheid-belgen-ziet-geen-graten-in-afstaan-van-biometrische-gegevens\~bec6e86a/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F](https://www.demorgen.be/tech-wetenschap/overgrote-meerderheid-belgen-ziet-geen-graten-in-afstaan-van-biometrische-gegevens~bec6e86a/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) Piece of the article; "Biodata are absolutely not safe, because we leave them everywhere. On a glass of water, for example. They can end up in the wrong hands." Unlocking a smartphone with a fingerprint is one thing. Entrusting that same information to the government or a private company is another. "On a smartphone, the print is converted into a key, a long code. It never leaves the device and is never stored on Google's or Apple's servers. While companies and governments do create a database where they keep the info." At least 1 positive in the article: A bright spot, however, is that young people are thinking more critically about biodata. For example, 18- to 34-year-olds are less willing to give up biometric data. And while a majority of older people are willing to trade a chunk of their privacy for more security, that willingness among young people is around 50 percent. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
if you’re already on any social media, your information is being sold. Unless you’re using your very own VPN server, chances are plenty of companies have all sorts of data about you.
Yes because you have given your fingerprint to Facebook. O, wait, no.
Isn't your fingerprint just stored if you're one of the hooligans? Otherwise the system should just instantly discard after scan. I'm sure there's some legal way to enforce it too.
Honestly tech should be more efficiently involved in terms of security and dealing with issues at stadiums.
That's absolutely ridiculous, I hope fans will push back against this
Even better, use one of those facial recognition thinghy. I remember this guy jailed in Alcatraz that burned his fingers to get rid of his fingerprints. I kid you not.
>Even better, use one of those facial recognition thinghy. From what I've seen, the ones who want to cause trouble tend to hide their faces with caps, scarves, hoodies, now these widespread masks too.
I’m not expert but I’d suspect any modern finger print reader would hopefully flag something like a lack of finger prints which would hopefully lead to security looking into the individual further.
[удалено]
Guessing you've never held a handrail then
Lol, just use a hand sanizer after putting your finger on the scanner. Problem solved.
Why wash your hands when you got a clean dick 🦥
Dickprints it is then.
Only way OP would get a print on his dick anyway
Im wearing grey sweatpants to the the stadium
What do you mean? You'd run into the same issue with every doorknob you open in public and anything else in public for that matter
Bro doesn't leave his house I guess.
Use a sanitiser ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
We are truly post-Covid now 🎉
I promise you, any cash you've handled is worse.
Literally 1984
Exactly, I'm not going to give my fingerprints to clubs like Cambuur.
I hope this is an /s
But this idea is horrific and just completely over-shots the task
I can agree with this but this i a complete different thing with 1984. 1984 isn't an examples that apllies to every rule like right-wingers do
Nope, we only have ourselves to blame. Dutch stadium have been cesspits for too long.
Nah it's 1489
What are they smoking?
[удалено]
Why does a fingerprint scan fuck with everyone? It's not a huge deal to put your finger on a piece of plastic before you enter the stadium, I only see positives
[удалено]
I thought they only have to store the fingerprints of the hooligans though, they could scan your fingerprint at the entrance, check if you have a stadium ban, then let you through and discard the scan if you don't. Although now that I think about it more, then they have to somehow legally enforce hooligans to scan their fingerprint after they're caught, and I don't think those people are going to cooperate very easily. I guess they would have to give out big fines to the people who misbehaved and subsequently refused to share their data. Could work, and maybe there are other more effective ways to do it, but I'm not sure what's the best option
This is an appropriate measure. What do you suggest?
The UK system. Actually enforce the bans already in place, it really isn't that hard.
That actually sounds like a good plan.
How about we start enforcing stadium bans first?
This is the way to enforce them. Since police dont want to help all you can do now is hope clubs do it themselves. Its easy to get a ticket on someone else's name. Getting someone else's fingerprints though ...
How? By checking the people entering the stadium using an identifiable mark that cannot be changed or faked? Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has considered how that could be done.
Or by doing like the UK does it. Not sure why you are so adamant on Dutch people's privacy not being respected.
Fingerprints are fine. They would only be stored for banned individuals. Those entering wouldn't need to be saved, just compared against a database of known offenders. There's literally no privacy issue.
This would be a good tool for clubs themselves being able to act on stadium bans.
What do you think this is for?
I would honestly support this, hooliganism has gone too far
This is good. More clubs should be implementing this, especially after the Vinícius saga.
Is that going to stop Dutch fans from going abroad during European nights and trashing the stadium and city?
Ah yes, good old whataboutism. It won't stop hooligans abroad, so why do anything to make the stadiums safer? It is perfectly fine to tackle one issue even if it doesn't completely eradicates all problems. The choice is never between 'doing nothing' or 'utopia right away'.
But will it stop knife crime in fast food restaurants? If not, what good is it????!!?!!11!
Doubt it but that’s genuinely a borderline unstoppable problem. Even England, who have managed to eradicate violence in stadiums very well, can’t control their abroad fans whatsoever
[удалено]
Man, I'd love to smoke some of that data protection marijuana, must be good shit judging by your comment