1 Feb 2011, 09:00

A man visited a bar where he was asked by the doorman to produce identification. He produced his driver's licence which was scanned into a black box by the doorman before being returned to him. The man believed the box took a photo of his licence and recorded information about him.

The man complained to us that he had not consented to the scanning and storing of his licence. He also expressed concerns over who would be able to view the scanned information from his licence.

The bar accepted that it had collected personal information.

It said the device at the entrance was a camera inside a protective metal box. When an identification card was placed into the device, a photo was taken of the card. This image was then stored for up to six days.

This complaint raised issues under principles 1 and 3 which deal with the collection of personal information.

Principle 1

Principle 1 provides that personal information should not be collected by any agency unless :

(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency; and
(b) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.

The bar said the information had been collected to assist it comply with responsibilities under the Sale of Liquor Act. Specifically, a copy of each patron's licence was taken to ensure that people under the age of 18 were not permitted access to the bar's premises.

While we accepted the need to verify the age and identity of patrons, we had some concern over why all information from the licence needed to be collected as age and identity could be verified by sighting each individual's licence.

The bar considered that simply sighting identification was insufficient and prone to human error. It said retaining a picture of each identification document better met the objectives of the Sale of Liquor Act as it would be able to demonstrate compliance if it were called upon by the District Licensing Inspectors or Police.

We agreed the bar had a lawful purpose to collect drivers' licence details to ensure people under the age of 18 were not given access to the bar. A function of the bar is to ensure its customers do not breach the Sale of Liquor Act.

We also considered it was necessary for the bar to collect that information. The bar advised us when issues arose with the Police or District Licensing Inspectors the ability to refer to identification documentation, for example, necessitated the collection of that information. We also agreed complying with the Sale of Liquor Act was better achieved by collecting identification details rather than just viewing it. It was our view that the bar had not breached principle 1.

Principle 3

Principle 3 provides where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps, as are in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of:

(a) the fact that the information is being collected; and
(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; and
(c) the intended recipients of the information; and
(d) if the collection of the information is authorise or required by law; and
(e) the consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested information is not provided.

In terms of whether the bar had informed patrons the purpose it was collecting identification details, the bar said there was a sign at the entrance. This sign noted that identification information may be requested and be recorded and held for six days. The sign also noted this was a condition of entry and individuals were entitled to refuse to have their identity data scanned; however, entry may then be refused.

Identity details were only collected from persons whom the doormen considered may be under the age of 18.

By displaying the sign, we agreed the bar had complied with principle 3. However, the bar agreed to improve its signage.

We also discussed the storage and retention of this information. The bar informed us that photos of the licences were stored for six days as this was the maximum length of time the recording device allows storage on its internal memory. We were also satisfied the information was protected by safeguards to ensure it could not be accessed inappropriately.

For these reasons, we were satisfied that there had been no interference with privacy and we discontinued the investigation.

We anticipate that the use of identification scanning devices will become increasingly common for the hospitality industry in New Zealand. The use of such devices is already an established practice in the Australian hospitality industry.

April 2011

Collection of personal information - identity data - validation of age - storage and retention of information - Privacy Act 1993, principle 1; principle 3