Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 15 2017, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-were-they-thinking? dept.

At least two Motel 6 locations in Phoenix, Arizona reported guest lists to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It was also rumored that ICE paid out $200 for every undocumented immigrant caught. A PR director from Motel 6's parent company confirmed that staff members at the locations were working with ICE without the approval of senior management:

At least two Motel 6 locations in Arizona are reporting their guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, which has resulted in at least 20 arrests, according to local media.

Phoenix New Times reported on Wednesday that two franchise locations of the motel chain are sending their guest lists to ICE agents "every morning," and possibly receiving $200 per undocumented immigrant caught in the sting.

"We send a report every morning to ICE — all the names of everybody that comes in," one front-desk clerk told the Times. "Every morning at about 5 o'clock, we do the audit and we push a button and it sends it to ICE."

Immigration attorney Denise Aguilar wrote The New Times in an email that some of her clients "have heard (no telling how valid the info is) that ICE is paying $200 per person for the front-desk clerk to report."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search hotel/motel registries.

Also at The Washington Post, NY Mag, and Vice.

[Ed. Addition] A follow-on story at Phoenix New Times After New Times Story, Motel 6 Says It Will Stop Sharing Guest Lists With ICE raises many interesting questions about the situation, and then was itself updated:

Update, 3:25 p.m.: Motel 6 has issued another statement in response to our story on their practice of sharing guest lists with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement:

"Over the past several days, it was brought to our attention that certain local Motel 6 properties in the Phoenix-area were voluntarily providing daily guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As previously stated, this was undertaken at the local level without the knowledge of senior management. When we became aware of it, it was discontinued.

Moving forward, to help ensure that this does not occur again, we will be issuing a directive to every one of our more than 1,400 locations nationwide, making clear that they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE.

Additionally, to help ensure that our broader engagement with law enforcement is done in a manner that is respectful of our guests' rights, we will be undertaking a comprehensive review of our current practices and then issue updated, company-wide guidelines.

Protecting the privacy and security of our guests are core values of our company. Motel 6 apologizes for this incident and will continue to work to earn the trust and patronage of our millions of loyal guests."

Related: (Rhode Island) ACLU Statement On "Change" In Motel 6 Policy of Sharing Guest List (2015)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday September 15 2017, @11:32AM (11 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @11:32AM (#568384) Journal

    In this case it looks like they were getting paid for each 'hit' so there was nothing remotely unlawful going on.

    Exactly who were they that were paid?
    TFS shows the management wasn't quite happy when they learned about the practice, which leads me to believe the money tiptoed into the pocket of the snitching receptionists. Dubious legality, don't you think?

    Even more, in the process, all the other guests' identity was "leaked" without any warrant and without the guests' consent. Does this sound lawful to you?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Friday September 15 2017, @12:11PM (3 children)

    by Spamalope (5233) on Friday September 15 2017, @12:11PM (#568393) Homepage

    Motel 6 corp sells franchises to semi-independent operators (subject to franchise rules). Motel 6 corp feels this is a reputation problem and may have only learned about it when the story broke. The franchise holders at those specific locations may have done it, possibly one who owns all the affected locations. Hired managers or front desk employees may have done it, and talked to other Motel 6 employees who decided to do the same. Individual Motel 6 corp employees may have known. Participation may have been enticed (bounty paid) or coerced (lawful or unlawful threats). A tangled mix could be the truth.

    I'd like to see it investigated, though of course those directly implicated have a motive to lie.

    • (Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday September 15 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)

      by deadstick (5110) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:45PM (#568419)

      I'm guessing the corp has abundant grounds for a lawsuit against the franchise operators for damaging its brand.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:20PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:20PM (#568450) Journal

        I would keep guessing. My guess is, there is no recourse against a franchise holder for helping to uphold the law. If there are any legitimate claims, those would be made by innocent people caught up in the dragnet.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @06:09PM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:09PM (#568591) Journal

      The franchise holders at those specific locations may have done it, possibly one who owns all the affected locations.

      Quote Original Story From the Phoenix New Times: (follow first link, then follow first link found there).

      Both locations are corporate-owned, dispelling one of the other popular theories: That a local franchise owner is collecting a week’s rent in advance, then calling ICE so that they can rent out the room to someone else.

      It was The Hill article that suggested these were franchise locations. But that was wrong.

      Not sure this makes a great deal of difference, other than a corporate owned location may actually be more interested in preserving the reputation of the brand and preventing the property from becoming another waypoint on the coyote railroad.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @01:48PM (5 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:48PM (#568422)

    Even more, in the process, all the other guests' identity was "leaked" without any warrant and without the guests' consent. Does this sound lawful to you?

    IANAL, but this sounds like a firing offense at most, but probably not unlawful. Privacy protections here in the US are abysmal, so I'd be surprised if this possible action (snitching receptionists divulging confidential company data without authorization from management) was actually unlawful. It should be; the Europeans definitely have the right idea on this issue.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @04:33PM (4 children)

      by edIII (791) on Friday September 15 2017, @04:33PM (#568524)

      Lawful, or unlawful, I will never sleep at a Motel 6 again. They give away ENTIRE FUCKING REGISTRIES on the mere possibility they may contain information about unlawful individuals staying in the hotel with me.

      That does violate privacy. Maybe the law will not catch up with them, but many, many, many wallets have now closed shut forever.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @05:00PM (3 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday September 15 2017, @05:00PM (#568546)

        That's a good position to take. If more people did this, then we'd have some real change in this country. Sadly, it's only a tiny, tiny minority that stand by their principles and vote with their feet like that.

        Personally, I will not avoid a Motel 6 because of this. I never would stay at a Motel 6 in the first place; it's a crappy chain, and I'd have to be really desperate to stay at one. I think I'd rather sleep in my car. The last time I stayed at a slightly lower-priced hotel to save a few dollars (and this was a Clarion Inn, still more expensive than Motel 6), I felt like I was in gang territory or something. Now, I just assume anything decent is going to be at least $100/night, and make sure they have an indoor swimming pool, and of course, interior hallways. That seems to keep the riff-raff out. Motels can be dangerous places; I actually had to take some training when I started my last job which instructed us on what rooms to pick in a hotel, what kind of hotels to go to, etc.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @06:14PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:14PM (#568595) Journal

          I felt like I was in gang territory or something.

          Well maybe that is exactly what Motel 6 was trying to avoid.

          Just sayin.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @06:46PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:46PM (#568616)

            They won't succeed with that approach: most gang members and other criminals are citizens. The only way to avoid having riff-raff in your establishment is to have higher prices, and the only way to have higher prices and stay in business in a competitive environment is to offer better service (e.g., a nice building with indoor corridors and an indoor pool, not a crappy low-budget building with rooms accessible from the outside).

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @07:43PM

            by edIII (791) on Friday September 15 2017, @07:43PM (#568659)

            Oh, come on. I know you want to denigrate and make these people out to be diseased bellicose thieves and rapists, but that is just stupid. Not all gang bangers are illegal aliens you know. Some of them may actually be black. I've even seen movies, music videos, etc. that all show U.S citizens as gang bangers.

            Most of the time illegal aliens are just families and migrant farm workers. People working long hours for shit pay, which puts them on equal footing with most of working America. Except they're not citizens. Yes, they're here illegally, but that's no justification to group them all in the violent offenders category. If that were really true, we'd be dealing with 11 million violent people committing crimes each day. You know the stats don't support that.

            So try walking that statement back. It was bigoted and stupid. Not to mention, what you are really saying is that you are comfortable violating the privacy of U.S citizens in order to get at these "Deplorables" you hate so much. That to me is incredibly unAmerican, to ever give up your rights and freedoms.

            There is no justification for the breach of trust and privacy, and your rabid White Nationalism here sure as hell isn't a good justification for screwing regular Americans out of their rights to privacy. At this point, those are just human rights, and no longer fought for as core rights of Free Americans.

            I thought you were better than that, or more patriotic than that. I know that you are. Pull your head out of your butt and start fighting for *OUR* rights.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:13PM (#568553)

    It's 100% legal. Welcome to America. Your private information in the hands of private businesses has near 0 legal protections. If people only knew the sort of information companies were trading and selling about them.

    The 'receptionists' will likely be fired, but given they were probably making 20-30 hours of pay per busted illegal - I doubt they'll have many regrets. Though one phenomenally interesting possibility is whether or not they'd actually be protected from firing dure to whistle blower laws. Those also tend to be pretty weak, so probably not - but it's a more interesting question than whether the act itself was legal or not. There's no ambiguity. I wish there were, but people are happy to let companies screw them until it hits the news. At which point they get upset and then forget about it the moment the next shocking headline comes down.