Image: Photo: Luke Reynolds
BY CHRISTOPHER HARRIS
A review into mandatory ID scanners for Kings Cross nightclubs has found that some venues find the financial imposition of the scanners crushing, while others want access to more of the personal information to conduct marketing and promotional activities.
The collection and use of the data has drawn the ire of Australian Privacy Foundation.
In submissions to the Office of Liquor and Gaming draft report leaked to the City Hub, some commentators said that the imposition of the price of scanner equipment as well as the cost of staffing the machines was significant.
Businesses also said the scanners had resulted in a loss of trade because less entrances and exits were open, and patrons chose to go somewhere else because they did not carry a valid identification with them.
In one submission to the report, the Kings Cross Liquor Accord. it was suggested that the scanner be configured to support the marketing activities of venues to monitor the spending behaviour of VIP customers.
Demographic trends, such as the age of patrons and what sex the majority of patrons are, are currently used by establishments in their marketing and promotional activity.
The report said the possibility of using personal details was dangerous: “The mere precedent of a Government mandated ID scanner system being used by venues to market products and services to individuals creates significant risk in terms of overall community confidence in privacy controls, and potential doubts about the harm minimisation principles underpinning the mandatory nature of the system.”
NSW Police wanted to remove the limitation on the search ability that records the names of everyone in an online portal. Rather than having to search the names of people who entered a particular venue, it wanted to search the entire Kings Cross precinct to see where a suspect was or had been.
The report noted that there were 38,537 incidents of people trying to scan an expired ID to gain access to a club. The review considered whether or not expired IDs were invalid, as they often clearly proved somebody’s identity. There were 373 incidents of people trying to scan fake IDs since June 2015.
Venues for which the scanners are mandatory are those which are open past 12am, serve alcohol and have a capacity for more than 120 people.
Some stakeholders argued that Kings Cross had been singled out for the ID scanners while other more violent venues in the Central Business District were not required to have them.
Licensed venues must pay $495 per month for one scanner and $220 for every subsequent scanner.
The Kings Cross Liquor Accord estimated that including additional staffing costs, the scanners cost all 23 venues in Kings Cross that have to use them a combined $2.4 million.
Venues that match the criteria for the scanners but do not believe they require one may request an exemption by writing a letter and paying $500 to the government.
David Vaile, a Vice-Chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, said that the idea that patrons were tracked or trackable was disturbing.
“We’ve been concerned about these scanners at clubs for some time,” Mr Vaile said.
Mr Vaile said that the right to privacy Australia was under threat as “Big Data” and global organisations compiled patterns of behaviour.
“On the global scale, we have marketing companies and software development capabilities with ambitions and well developed plans for large scale, life-long dossiers on people – psychographic profiles which enable them to ‘slip under your radar’ and present things to you that you somehow just automatically choose.”
“In a free and open democracy, you would have enforceable rights to privacy, confidentiality, data protection, you wouldn’t have to beg for them, or have them constantly sidelined in favour of the interests of powerful entities, and those collecting information on you would be exposed to maximum Freedom of Information, transparency and accountability. In a scary authoritarian regime, it’s reversed: the snoopers can work in secret, while you have no right to privacy, confidentiality or personal information security. Those are the two poles, and the more we head toward the one with no rights and no protection of our data, the more vulnerable you are. The reality in Australia is that we are a lot closer to the middle, further down toward the dangerous end of the spectrum than most of us realise.”
In the draft report, it said some businesses had complained because it was unfair Kings Cross had scanners but some more violent venues in the CBD were not required to have them.
Mr Vaile said the scanners could be the first step in a growing trend.
“I’m not suggesting that every club or pub would end up with one of these straight away. But once you set up these things, local councils have a fondness for surveillance tools, and clubs in the Cross disadvantaged by them are tempted to push for others to get them, rather than questioning their proportionality and justification. The UK for instance has oppressive levels of cameras, but there is research suggesting that often the technology just displaces the behaviour onto other communities rather than preventing it.”
“Where is this heading? What are the real risks projected onto people, and any real benefits? Do we actually get these benefits? Where is the data and where is the independent, credible evidence? Is it possible to assess the level of effectiveness, or, as in many cases, are politicians tempted to run on the PR benefit they get from making wildly exaggerated claims while ignoring the erosion of our hard won democratic rights and freedoms?”
Mr Vaile said the fact that clubs had to pay for the scanners may mean they were seeking a ‘return on investment’ by accessing and exploiting demographic information the scanners provide.
“As soon as dollars are spent it is a question of how can we get a return on investment? How can I get value back either through promotions and marketing?”
Information obtained by the scanners expires after 30 days.
