
Motel 6 routinely gave guests' information to immigration officials - smacktoward
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-motel-6-immigration-20180103-story.html
======
avn2109
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.

~~~
JorgeGT
At least in my country, Spain, guest data must be sent to the police database
within 24h of his/her check-in.

~~~
chrismeller
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.

1: [http://emn.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/466_emn_ad-
hoc_quer...](http://emn.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/466_emn_ad-
hoc_query_on_registration_of_visitorsider_dissemination_en.pdf)

------
poulsbohemian
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.

~~~
reaperducer
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.

------
ryanianian
Shame on Motel 6 for not being transparent.

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.

~~~
eli
Sending ICE a list of people with "Latino sounding" names is a much bigger
problem than just a lack of transparency

~~~
gnu8
I wonder if there would be a way to DoS them by sending phony lists with tens
of thousands of machine generated latino sounding names.

~~~
TallGuyShort
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?

~~~
whatshisface
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.

When did my country become third-world?

~~~
TallGuyShort
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.

------
supermatt
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
supermatt
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like the legal equivalent of
doublethink, How confusing :(

------
DoofusOfDeath
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.)

~~~
Cyberdog
If ICE agents suspect criminal activity, they can get a damned warrant like
they're supposed to.

~~~
talmand
So then they just need a judge to grant a daily warrant and a fed walks up to
the front desk every day to request the list.

~~~
rsynnott
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.

~~~
talmand
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.

------
tomc1985
This was old news a dozen years ago if you've worked hospitality nearby a
place that does this

------
horsecaptin
Do you have to provide your ID to Motel 6 if you were paying in cash?

~~~
ghaff
You may well have to.

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.

~~~
talmand
Makes you wonder exactly what they think they are covering themselves from.

~~~
wccrawford
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.

~~~
ghaff
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.

~~~
wccrawford
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.

------
JustSomeNobody
I guess we now know who they were really leaving the light on for.

~~~
a3n
We'll leave the jail house light on for you.

------
AlgorithmicTime
I... don't really see the problem with this?

~~~
ballenf
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.

~~~
aceoflala
Are jews illegal per se?

Are illegal immigrants illegal per se?

~~~
mikeash
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.”

~~~
ChemicalWarfare
>> 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.

------
damikiova
Btw. Exactly same what facebook does also.

Is this really news to anybody?

~~~
fishcolorbrick
> Exactly same what facebook does also.

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?

------
lerie82
Awesome, I guess. I really don't see a problem with this.

~~~
fishcolorbrick
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.

------
indubitable
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.

~~~
maxerickson
Here be filing:

[http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Anot...](http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/Complaint.Scan2.pdf)

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".

~~~
indubitable
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.

[1] -
[http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020)

[2] -
[http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.030](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.030)

[3] -
[http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.215](http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.215)

~~~
talmand
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.

Might be an interesting lawsuit.

