Nomination for the Australian Privacy Foundation ‘Big Brother Awards’ 2011
BBA2011 FINALIST

Criteria for a BBA2011 Award
The purpose of these Awards is to publicise privacy-abusive behaviour.  A responsible approach is adopted.  
As appropriate for the particular Award Category the nominee should be a public or private sector individual or organization, a government program or initiative, or a private sector business activity:
•	in or associated with Australia
•	responsible for a truly outstanding abuse (or defence) of privacy.
For a nominee to be considered, they need to be identified, their acts or behaviours that warrant an Award need to be briefly described, and some evidence needs to be provided, preferably both some originating with the nominee itself, and some from other sources such as the media. The deed for which they are nominated should have at least partially been put into practice – they lose points for just planning or announcing something!  Further details about BBA2010-11 are available at http://www.privacy.org.au/bba/.

A.   Name of Nominee 

Chasers Nightclub, Melbourne

B.  Award Category: Privacy Abuser Categories for an “Orwell” Award -

Worst Corporate Invader – for a corporation that has shown a blatant disregard for privacy.

C.   Description
Award is for adopting privacy invasion technology to identify all potential patrons, store personal data and to deny service to those who wish to protect their privacy. 

Chasers nightclub, in Prahran, Melbourne, uses facial recognition software to scan patrons’ faces as they enter the nightclub and matches those images against a database of photos. Images, along with drivers license details, are stored by the club. The software can then be used to identify patrons who have been previously banned from their venue.  

The use of this technology, particularly in conjunction with ID scanners (as at Chasers), raises a number of issues, including:
•	The equipment is fallible, there are potential for errors, and therefore misidentification.
•	Data security and risk of identity theft. “At the moment there’s always the danger someone can get hold of images and post them on the internet,” Michael Pearce of Liberty Victoria told the Herald Sun. (http://www.inthemix.com.au/news/aust/42412 /Melbourne_club_introduces_facescanning_technology)
•	People can be subject to prejudicial behaviour by bouncers, and potentially, police. This can lead to an escalation of situations. 

There have been suggestions that images of 'troublemakers' will form the basis of a 'blacklist',  which raises many issues, including: 
•	Who determines what behaviour places someone on a blacklist? 
•	How long will someone remain on the list? Is there any way to appeal such a decision, particularly if the there is misidentification? 
•	How many other clubs will this list be shared with? And who else will access the list: police? 

D.   Evidence of the Actions and References
http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=chasers+facial+recognition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=7fbwTObUDMHQcZetjNIK (Video from the Herald Sun, who talks with Chasers security manager)
http://www.inthemix.com.au/news/aust/42412/Melbourne_club_introduces_facescanning_technology

E.  Why the Nominee Deserves the Award
Scope
Currently people who wish to enter Chasers nightclub in Melbourne are affected. However, the risk of this practice spreading is of such concern that in April 2010 the Australian Privacy Commissioner warned “pubs and clubs to familiarise themselves with their legal obligations when looking to collect patrons’ identity information” (source: http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/a-z?fullsummary=7075).  
“It’s suggested that if more venues introduced the scanning system, then a ‘database’ of known trouble-makers could be formed.”  (source: http://www.inthemix.com.au/news/aust/42412/ Melbourne_club_introduces_facescanning_technology)

Seriousness
The practice of collecting personal information and photographs of all patrons is intrinsically intrusive, oppressive and dangerously insecure. It is not appropriate to routinely scan documents. There are viable alternative methods of identifying patrons to ensure they comply with regulations governing access to clubs and excluding those that have acted inappropriately in the past. Refer to http://www.privacy.organization.au/Papers/clubIDScans.html. Viewing evidence of identity plus recording the verified name separate from the documents should be adequate in most cases, and is cheaper, quicker and less offensive. If there is a breach of law then a club may reasonable bar that particular person. 

“Collecting unnecessary information is a breach of the Privacy Act” (p1 Private Section Information Sheet 30 – ID scanning in pubs and clubs, issued by the Office of the Australian Privacy Commissioner, April 2010).  Once a person has been identified, all information kept about them becomes personal information, and should be dealt with in accordance with privacy legislation, including providing people access to their data, and storing the data securely. 

F. Other Comments (including Nominee Response)

This nomination form was emailed to the nominee on 18 March for comment by 8 April 2011. No response was received by the Coordinator of BBA2011 by 9 April 2011.