Motel 6 routinely gave guests' information to immigration officials
latimes.com
latimes.com
e.g. Why do you have to write down your car's plate number, by law, if you pay cash for a hotel room? So the law can find you when you're on the run and therefore not using a credit card, of course. This is law enforcement 101, one of the oldest tricks in the book.
It's not just ICE, there must be literally dozens of three letter agencies privy to the same information from Motel 6 and its competitors.
I knew Estonia did, so I used that as a basis for a search. Apparently they requested basically an RFC from other EU countries on whether they do [1].
Of the respondents, the following require registration: Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Norway.
That’s non-exhaustive, I know from other sources that at least within the EU Italy does as well, not to mention countless other countries around the world.
1: http://emn.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/466_emn_ad-hoc_quer...
When you pay by cash, you need to do that, as well as supply photo ID.
IME, when filling out the form, the clerks usually just say "oh don't worry about that". So one time, expecting the same, I asked them, "and do you actually need the plate?" and she said "well how long are you staying?" and I said "A few weeks" and she laughed and said "oh then of course I need that, don't want to tow you by accident."
Your theory IMHO doesn't make sense -- if it's for ratting you out and they don't otherwise use it, then this fugitive-on-the-run can just give a fake number.
Compliance with Law
This is a United States Site and is subject to the laws of the United States.
We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be
required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a
court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
As others have said, license plates were purely so that we didn’t accidentally tow guests’ vehicles and we could call someone who was blocking the fire lane.
But as a counter-point to how much hotels will cooprate with agencies, most hotels will also cooprate with their guests. You would be surprised what you can "get away with" if you're polite to front-desk staff.
I've never given my license plate to hotels despite it being on many forms - I always just ask if I can leave it blank - sometimes they say it's their policy to ask for it, and I always ask if I can leave it blank, and a smile later and it's still blank.
(Similarly, you can almost always get a suite upgrade by being nice to the front desk agent checking you in and by slipping a $20 when you first walk up. This also works for rental cars - I got a $30/day mustang once by giving the guy a $20. Saved like $1,000.)
People with questionable immigration status may not be quite so daring or wish to raise suspicion by asking for exceptions, but it also kinda goes without saying that leaving any sort of paper-trail if you're proverbially on the lam is probably best avoided.
edit: I realize this isn't about license-plates and neglecting to give an ID to a hotel may be harder, but my point is that you may be surprised at how lenient most policies are.
So ask yourself: how much are you willing to piss off a three-lettered agency regardless of the legality of that specific action?
When did my country become third-world?
My point is that the federal government can really screw people over when it chooses to. I'd still choose to live here than in most third-world countries, though.
Apologies if this comes across as apoplectic, but isn't that straight-up corruption? It's not as bad as similar behavior by a government official, of course, but it's still a principle-agent problem when an employee uses their position to enrich themselves instead of doing the job they're paid to do. It's one thing when a clerk upgrades you as a nice gesture, but by involving cash I feel like you're crossing a line.
My understanding is that check-in agents are given pretty wide liberties and that doing this sort of thing isn't really against the rules - I even do this with clerks whose nametags say "Manager". Employees are encouraged to give above-average service to customers who will bring long-term value to the business, and a customer who treats the employees well with token-but-meaningful tips is a good customer. I tend to strongly prefer return-visits to companies whose employees have done such things for me.
The trick doesn't always work - if no rooms are available or if they suspect they'll probably be able to sell the room at full-rate they don't oblige. This said, every agent has graciously apologized and returned the "tip" (=bribe) or given well above the $ worth of other kickbacks (restaurant vouchers, free wifi upgrades, etc.).
For the company it makes sense : it doesn't cost much more for a guest to stay in a suite versus a regular room, and the extra wear on a "luxury" car doesn't cost that much more than the wear on an "economy" car. May as well give it to a customer who's showing appreciation and will likely be extremely happy with their service and probably come back.
Some companies will also give you these things if you complain enough or yell at the staff until they give in.
There's plenty of people who get free upgrades and products simply by yelling at people until they are given free things to go away.
Edit: This is how it looks to an outsider, I guess its more nuanced than that - but it should be black and white.
It's the same thing with marijuana. Legal in many states, but illegal under federal law.
(I'm a bit sketchy regarding what aspects of being in the U.S. without a valid visa are considered violations of criminal law, and if/when that distinction even matters.)
Doesn't have to be thousands of hotels, just the hotels commonly identified as popular with illegals. Once that well dries up you find a new one.
Would it happen? Probably not, but would depend on the local situation.
A couple months ago I managed to lose my driver's license (but not my whole wallet) on the way to the airport. Somewhat to my surprise, I didn't have a real issue with TSA. They gave me a very thorough screening but it wasn't really an issue.
However, when I got to the Travelodge at SFO, they REALLY didn't want to check me in even though I had a reservation in their system. The only way I could persuade them was to pay cash plus a security deposit and to let them make a copy of my work badge with photo. Had I not had that with me, I don't think they'd have let me check in.
I do know if, as a business, you handle this sort of situation much worse than the TSA does, you're probably doing something wrong.
There was a free street concert - even for that the road was blocked on both sides and only those with valid IDs could get in.
So yeah, maybe not universal but it happens enough to be a hassle.
This would be especially problematic at times when all the hotels in the area are full because of a convention or sports game.
But for walking off the street? Just general idiocy. What if you stain the carpets and break the walls, then disappear? They'd need some way to know who to send the cops after.
But this was just stupid.
My reservation was in the computer.
I had a wallet full of cards including the one I used to make the reservation.
I had a photo ID, just not a government-issued one.
They could trivially have looked me up on the web if they had wanted to.
Trust me. If I'm going to scam a hotel for a couple nights stay, it's not going to be a fleabag Travelodge at SFO. It's managing risk by inflexible rules, not sensible and flexible policy. Of course, IT organizations often do pretty much the same thing.
What's the penalty for faking a Visa with picture on it? Nothing.
Of course, there's still a penalty for fraud, but if you're just taking the reservation and not taking the money that's been paid for it, then it's going to be hard to prosecute.
It's not like it's the front line employee's or location manager's idea to informally record your identifiers "just in case" - at the very least it's a deep corporate policy. And the company didn't whimsically conjure up that requirement on its own, but was prompted to do so as part of implementing some kind of third party surveillance solution(s).
1. Fly to New York 2. Cross international boundaries.
However a temp paper was not enough to get into a casino in Canada.
edit: And most of those categories have been illegal in some states in the US's history.
Are illegal immigrants illegal per se?
Sure. So how do we determine who is an illegal immigrant? By looking at an illegally-obtained list of names and picking out the Hispanic ones for background checks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Reich_Citizensh...
that's not apples to apples. "illegal driver" would be someone who is breaking the law by the very fact of them driving - ppl with no DLs for example. same with illegal immigrants - they are breaking the law by the very fact of being present in the country they are not permitted to be in.
Is this really news to anybody?
My google-fu is weak - I can't find any source for Facebook providing information to ICE. Would you please help me out with some more information on this?
Quoting from a below comment:
> Replacing "undocumented immigrant" with "jew" or "same-sex couple" or "interracial couple" or "movie torrent pirate"... surely one of those substitutions triggers a reaction in even the most law-and-order out there.
> And most of those categories have been illegal in some states in the US's history.
I’d be livid if I got hassled everywhere I went simply because German last names are out of vogue this year. You can bet Joey feels the same.
I'd certainly understand some outrage if we lived in a nation where there was any value whatsoever put on strong individual privacy protections, but we live in one that's rather the opposite - and so I'm not seeing the issue.
From: https://www.motel6.com/en/faq.html | https://web.archive.org/web/20171124044157/https://www.motel6.com/en/faq.html
What we will and will not do with Guest Information
1. We will not sell trade or rent Guest Information to
parties outside the Company, our franchisees and affiliates,
or permit our affiliates to sell such information to parties
outside of our group of companies, franchisees and affiliates. Compliance with Law
This is a United States Site and is subject to the laws of the United States.
We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be
required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a
court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.
Washington state however has a statute that protects consumers from such data sharing.
(Also, I added a link to the terms in an edit that also fixed formatting. Wasn't my intention to be deceptive by omitting it)
Uh? "We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation ..."
A court is going to say these are two different sentences talking about two different things. One where they voluntarily may do it whenever they want, and one where they may be required to do it anyway by court order.
"We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, ..."
They are saying right there that they may disclose such information. Whether they are breaking state law is a matter for the courts to decide. Apparently the Supreme Court already decided such a matter. I disagree with that decision, if such information should be kept private then it should be illegal for a hotel to require such data. They should only require the information to charge for the room or accept cash with little or no information. Why does the hotel require such information in the first place?
But all this does is create yet another bump in the road for law enforcement to do one of the easiest parts of their job, asking a third-party for information.
Again, if there were laws against companies selling or sharing information then I think this would be a major issue and my stance would also change 180 degrees. I also very much wish those laws existed, but they do not. And pretending they do only masks our complete lack of consumer privacy protections in the US.
IN fact, this very privacy policy also includes the standard term that they may disclose info to LEO's, you just omitted it.
http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Anot...
Apparently Washington has a "Consumer Protection Act" that makes deceptive practices illegal and a "Washington Law Against Discrimination" that includes "anti-discrimination protections in places of public accommodation".
It's also pretty much not deceptive by law (happy to point you at the law of deceptive practices if you like).
The most likely outcome is a loss by Washington. If the state wins, the most likely outcome is congress will immunize corporations from suit in these situations, which imho, would be worse than losing the lawsuit (and probably done in a way with significant collateral damage to consumer protection)
- [1] RCW 19.86.02 = Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
- [2] RCW 49.60.030(1)(b) = The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement [without discrimination against race/creed/color/...]
- [3] RCW 49.60.215 = It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons ... PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.
I am still unclear on what the violation is supposed to have been. The first two charges are about unfair commercial practices and refusing service based on race - neither of which seem to really apply here. The third makes a specific exception for conditions that apply to all customers - and in their terms they specifically state, to all customers, that they may give their information to law enforcement.
[1] - http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020
1) So freaking vague it could mean anything.
2) I can understand the discrimination claim but the easy counter is that latino-sounding names doesn't necessarily imply race, creed, or color.
3) I'm not really sure on this one but I would argue that the persons affected were not prevented from getting a room. Plus one could argue that if an illegal is discovered at the hotel then there could be damages from law enforcement conducting a raid. I need someone to explain the context on this one.
Might be an interesting lawsuit.