Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but nearly every hotel/motel shares information with some subset of law enforcement themed agencies, regardless of what their "privacy policy" says on paper.
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.
Hm, I always thought the license plate number was so they know not to tow your car when it's left there for a(n otherwise) suspiciously long time.
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.
Their privacy policy, in this case, literally states they may disclose your information with law enforcement agencies.
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.
Not just Spain. If you’ve ever traveled you’ll know that the first question you’re asked at a hotel upon checkin is “Can I see your passport?”
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.
I can confirm that it is also the case in Italy and Mexico. My family and I stayed there recently. In both countries, they took copies of our passports to send them to law enforcement agencies as part of the hotel check-in process.
I can’t remember the last time I was required to give a license plate number at a hotel. I have on some occasions years ago, but not any time recently. I assumed it was just a matter of parking enforcement. Surely it can’t be a legal requirement if it’s so inconsistent.
I've only stayed at a motel once, and they asked for my license plate (paid with a credit card). I've been to hundreds of hotels and they have never asked.
If you're not in one of five metro areas where you can reasonably navigate without a car, they'll know you're a liar and a scoundrel, and will do nothing about it.
I worked as a night auditor in a couple of hotels while in college, and I’ve never even heard a rumor of what you’re talking about. We never gave a scrap of information to a LEO unless it was directly related to a crime under active investigation (as in “we chased someone into room 204 and arrested them. Do you have their registration info?”).
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.
I'm glad we have Bob Ferguson here in the great state of Washington standing up to the Feds. Apart from this case, will also be interesting watching what he does in relation to Session's revocation of the Cole memo.
Is he also going to stand up to his local sheriff and police departments? Because there isn't a hotel in America that doesn't hand over its guest register to the local LEOs on request.
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.
Just this morning there was a discussion on HN about how the only way to deal with the mountain of laws that don't make sense anymore is to selectively stop enforcing them. I can guarantee you've inadvertently violated the letter of some law somewhere several times today, despite being (I assume) a generally good person.
So ask yourself: how much are you willing to piss off a three-lettered agency regardless of the legality of that specific action?
In one HN thread I've seen one person is talking about the benefits of tipping officials, and another commenting on how we've all broken laws anyways and that prosecution is mainly based on not "pissing off" the government.
Someone bribing a hotel clerk and Attorney General being in the news for talking about enforcing a law that hasn't been enforced in a while is a very far cry from the way police pull you over for arbitrary reasons and routinely expect bribes in some other countries. They can technically be phrased in similar ways, but the US is hardly on par with, say, Zimbabwe in terms of corruption.
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.
We're all third world. The saying about individuals probably applies to governments and corporations: Power (or money) doesn't change you, it just reveals who you are.
> (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.)
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.
If they have your name, you're in their system forever and staff can see notes from your stays in the past. Almost guaranteed that if you're a jerk you will be given the worst possible room/car/* on your next visit.
What an absolute shitter the legal system is over there. Share information requested by legal officials, get sued by the government. Don't share information requested by legal officials, get detained. Maybe it should be the officials asking for this information who should be getting prosecuted.
Edit: This is how it looks to an outsider, I guess its more nuanced than that - but it should be black and white.
There are two different independent governments involved. One is conservative and wants aggressive illegal immigration enforcement. The other is liberal and wants to prevent such enforcement from affecting legal immigrants and citizens. Each is sovereign and independent to a degree.
It's the same thing with marijuana. Legal in many states, but illegal under federal law.
Wouldn't adhering to the privacy policy potentially make them guilty of conspiracy (in harboring people in the U.S. illegally), in cases where they suspected it was happening?
(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.)
Will a judge grant a warrant for what's basically a fishing expedition (it's not like they're looking for a named person), for thousands of hotels, every day? I'd be very surprised.
Almost all search warrants are fishing expeditions in one way or another. If they knew for a fact that whatever the search is for is at the location, such as visual identification, then most likely probable cause would cover it.
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.
No, instead we should all be required to report our interactions to three letter agencies, just so they have a "helping hand" with locating (suspected) criminals...?
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.
My bet is: People who steal other people's reservations.
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.
Oh I'm sure I'm sure there's some generalized "So you can be tracked down if you do something bad."
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.
The whole point of a government-issued ID is the trust behind it. They can be counterfeit, but the penalties for getting caught are severe.
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.
Presumably they take your driver's license mark-of-the-beast and submit it to the surveillance bureaus to check that you're not an undesirable, just as stores do with non-receipt returns for store credit.
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).
I doubt anyone could tell you besides "It's what our processes require." It's certainly not universal. I check into lots of hotel (probably the majority) which don't ask to see an ID.
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.
My experience is similar to your parent comment - I've never been able to check into a hotel without showing photo ID (I never paid cash btw, always credit card, always in advance and in many cases had the print out of the booking). Same for hip boutique hotels and motels.
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.
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.
edit: And most of those categories have been illegal in some states in the US's history.
People are never illegal. People perform acts which may or may not be illegal. “Illegal immigrant” is a dumb term. We don’t describe speeders as “illegal drivers.”
>> We don’t describe speeders as “illegal drivers.”
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.
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?
The majority of European (and other) countries require everyone staying at a hotel be reported, so it doesn’t become the hotel’s job to determine illegal vs legal, it just becomes a huge privacy issue for everyone because the government knows everywhere you stay.
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?
The problem is that mixing business and law enforcement, so that quotidian commercial transactions become opportunities for criminal investigation, can and historically has lead to unintended consequences.
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.
Little Joey Sanchez was born in Iowa to 3rd generation native-born American citizens. Why should Joey be subject to any more scrutiny than his neighbor, Tom Smith, just because his last name is less Anglo?
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.
What exactly is supposed to have been "unlawful" here? Companies regularly sell your information to anybody willing to pay for it. In this case that selling actually had some overlap with improving lawfulness in an area. As for 'selling', this article omits the information that desk clerks were receiving a 'bounty' of $x per illegal immigrant caught.
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.
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".
Thanks for the solid information. I just looked up the laws that the AG is suing on:
- [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.
I'm curious how this would turn out. Devil's advocate for a moment...
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.
Doubtful. The privacy policy clearly states they may give info to LEO's.
They are generally welcome to do so in almost all states.
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)
Well it's a violation of their own privacy policy, which is why the Wa. state AG is suing them:
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.
FWIW: Historically, such statements have not been viewed in other jurisdictions or courts to mean they could not/would not provide information to LEOs.
IN fact, this very privacy policy also includes the standard term that they may disclose info to LEO's, you just omitted it.
Well you're being rather disingenuous. Those exact terms [1] also include:
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.
This is about them voluntarily giving guest information to ICE without informing the guests. Which caused actual harm to at least 6 residents in the state of Washington. There's no federal law saying that hotels must provide detailed guest info (name, DOB, drivers license, car license plate, room number, and other info) and the hotel. So my plain reading of their terms would suggest that data should only be shared "during the discovery process in litigation [or] pursuant to a court order"
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)
You're plain reading of the terms skipped over the first part:
"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.
"So my plain reading of their terms would suggest that data should only be shared "during the discovery process in litigation [or] pursuant to a court order""
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.
Washington does not have any such statute protecting consumers from data sharing. The exact laws the AG is trying to sue for are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16072592 The actual laws he's citing do not seem appropriate for this case. One of them being refusal of service based on race, another law specifically does not apply to things that apply to all customers (and their terms specifically opt all consumers into information sharing), and the final is unfair commercial practices which is intended for things like selling a used vehicle as a new one.
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.
The wording looks a little ambiguous to me (not a lawyer; I'm sure there are rules about how to parse this sort of odd sentence structure), but I would take that to mean that they'll provide data if there's a court order or law forcing them to. Not if the law enforcement agency just asks for it without a warrant.
If your agreement with your customer says "we do X with your data", and you actually do Y, then at the very least you may be civilly liable, and it may also be some form of consumer fraud.
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.