Privacy advocates express concerns over a Winnipeg bar’s utilization of an ID scanning system that labeled a woman as a national public safety risk. This designation resulted in her being turned away from a Calgary Stampede venue in July.
The individual, identified as Alexandra, a lawyer based in Montreal, visited the Riverside bar in St. Vital on June 6, where her driver’s license was scanned by security personnel using a Patronscan ID reader. Despite not being informed of the purpose behind the scanning, an incident that occurred that night triggered a flag that potentially restricted her access to bars across Canada.
Alexandra recounted feeling unwell at the Winnipeg bar and seeking refuge in the nearest restroom, only to be asked to leave by a staff member. Despite complying, she left without further incident. Following this, she encountered entry denials at a Calgary Stampede venue on July 9 and subsequent days due to a purported “criminal record,” which she refuted.
Upon inquiring further, Alexandra was shown a flag in the system attached to her ID, categorizing her as a “public safety concern” with a “serious” severity level based on an incident at the Riverside bar where she allegedly entered the men’s bathroom and refused to vacate.
Expressing her dismay, Alexandra highlighted the lack of transparency regarding the flag’s origin and the extent of data sharing between establishments. She shared her concerns with CBC after discovering the cross-province implications of the flag.
The Riverside bar’s management, in response to Alexandra’s complaint, acknowledged an error in flagging her and rectified the mistake by removing the external flag from her record. They emphasized their commitment to privacy and stated the importance of distinguishing between appropriate use of Patronscan for public safety and administrative errors.
Experts interviewed by CBC underscored the need for individuals to be informed about the collection and sharing of personal data through ID scanning. They emphasized compliance with privacy laws requiring organizations to provide clear explanations for data collection and use, ensuring they align with reasonable expectations.
While Patronscan clarified their data collection practices for age verification, they acknowledged the retention of information for incidents and the potential for network flags to be shared among venues. The BarWatch program in Vancouver, employing Patronscan, was noted for its policies on managing public flags and collaborating with law enforcement.
Critics raised concerns about the adequacy of signage informing patrons of data collection and sharing practices, emphasizing the importance of transparency and individual consent. The subjective nature of flagging individuals and the potential consequences of such actions were highlighted, urging a closer examination of surveillance technologies’ impact on privacy and social dynamics.
As Alexandra pursues an official complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, former privacy commissioners and experts echoed her concerns, calling for a thorough investigation into the incident. Alexandra emphasized the importance of raising awareness about data privacy infringements and advocating for individuals’ rights in an era of increasing surveillance and data-driven technologies.