Concerns have been raised by privacy advocates following an incident at a Winnipeg bar where a woman was flagged as a national public safety risk due to its ID scanning system, resulting in her being denied entry to a Calgary Stampede venue in July.
Alexandra, a lawyer from Montreal, visited the Riverside bar in St. Vital on June 6. At the entrance, a security staff member scanned her driver’s license using a Patronscan ID scanner.
She reported that she was not informed about the scanning process and was unaware that an incident later that night would lead to a flag that could restrict her from entering bars throughout Canada.
“This flag prevented me from entering an establishment in a completely different province without my knowledge or any transparency regarding how this flag was created,” Alexandra stated.
She recounted feeling unwell at the Winnipeg bar and rushed to the nearest restroom, fearing she might vomit. When someone knocked on the door asking her to exit, she requested a moment to regain her composure before leaving without further issues.
CBC News is using only Alexandra’s first name due to her concerns about potential professional repercussions from sharing her experience.
Refusal of entry at Calgary Stampede venue
On July 9, Alexandra attempted to enter a venue at the Calgary Stampede that utilized the same Patronscan scanner but was denied entry. The staff member operating the scanner informed her that she had a “criminal record,” which she knew to be untrue.
Believing it was an isolated incident, she tried to access the same venue again the following day but was once more refused entry, prompting her to seek further clarification.
The venue employee showed her a flag associated with her ID in their system, indicating she was labeled a “public safety concern” with a “serious” severity level due to an incident where she “entered the men’s bathroom and refused to leave,” specifically noting the Riverside location.
Alexandra claims she was denied entry at a Calgary Stampede venue and was told she has a ‘criminal record’ a month after the occurrence at the Winnipeg bar. (James Young/CBC)
“I quickly realized that this was a case of data sharing, as there’s no way a flag from a bar in Winnipeg could appear at a venue in Alberta,” Alexandra remarked.
She took a photo of the screen displaying this information and sent it to CBC.
“I found the specific flag to be quite outrageous,” she commented. “There are individuals who enter bars, engage in assaults, and initiate fights, among other terrible behaviors.”
Network of flags used across North America
Alexandra soon discovered that the Winnipeg bar is part of Patronscan’s flag network, a system employed by the Calgary-based platform to notify other venues about troublesome patrons.
This system eliminates the need for one bar to call another to warn them about a problematic guest or to share incident reports, as stated on Patronscan’s website. It is utilized across North America and globally, aiming to prevent dangerous individuals from gaining access to venues.
The manager of the Riverside bar communicated via email with CBC News that after Alexandra reached out, they reviewed the situation and concluded it was an error, clarifying that it should have remained an internal flag. The bar has since removed the external flag on her record, the manager confirmed.
A Montreal-based lawyer was denied entry to a venue when her ID was scanned at the Calgary Stampede in July. This occurred because she was flagged as a nationwide public safety concern after an incident at a Winnipeg bar in June.
Following her concerns, the bar assessed its staff procedures concerning how flags are recorded and the protocols for sharing information with other venues, as stated by the manager.
The manager emphasized that the bar takes privacy issues seriously but pointed out a crucial difference between the proper use of Patronscan for public safety and this “specific administrative error.”
Awareness of data usage is crucial, say experts
Experts consulted by CBC highlighted that the situation raises significant issues regarding the management of individuals’ personal information during ID scans at establishments.
According to federal privacy laws for the private sector, organizations are required to inform individuals in a “meaningful way” regarding the purposes of collecting, using, or disclosing their personal information.
Teresa Scassa, the Canada Research Chair in Information Law at the University of Ottawa, asserts that individuals must be better informed regarding how their data may be utilized or shared when their ID is scanned. (CBC)
The law also specifies that an organization must collect, use, or disclose information for a purpose that a reasonable individual would deem appropriate under the circumstances.
Teresa Scassa, the Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa, emphasized the importance of individuals asking questions when they present their identification for scanning.
The sign below the Patronscan ID machine at the Riverside bar outlines how the personal information collected will be utilized and shared. After Alexandra’s complaint regarding the public flag, the bar’s management sent her a picture of the sign. (Submitted by Alexandra)
“Is the collection necessary? Is it appropriate in the situation? Does it overstep boundaries? How is the data managed? Is it secure? With whom is it shared? These are all pertinent questions,” she remarked.
A representative from Patronscan stated in an email that when an ID is scanned, they gather the name, date of birth, gender, postal code, and expiration date for age verification. If there are no incidents that night, the record is deleted within 21 days in Manitoba.
In the event of an incident, the spokesperson noted, the venue can record a flag, and the information is retained for a longer duration. For serious incidents, a network flag may be recorded, which is visible to other Patronscan venues only when an ID is scanned.
Public flags enhance safety, according to BarWatch chair
The BarWatch program in Vancouver has been in operation for over ten years, encompassing 46 bars and clubs, all of which utilize Patronscan. This program enables bars to ban individuals who are gang members or deemed dangerous or harassing across its network.
According to Curtis Robinson, the chair of BarWatch and a former police officer, the program has established guidelines for assigning public flags and collaborates with the Vancouver police.
-
Barwatch introduces lifetime bans for weapons infractions at Granville Street bars
-
Vancouver bars to dump unattended drinks after VPD warning
A strict code of conduct is enforced that patrons must adhere to, or they risk being banned through the system. British Columbia’s privacy commissioner approved the program in 2009, on the condition that information collected would be deleted within 24 hours if no incidents occurred.
“We take bans for poor behavior very seriously. By acting unsafely, individuals are essentially informed that they cannot enter here or any other BarWatch establishment,” Robinson remarked.
He noted that individuals who prefer not to have their ID scanned can opt for bars that do not participate in BarWatch.
‘Undesirable to whom?’
At the Riverside entrance, a Patronscan sign is displayed below eye level beneath the ID scanning machine. Alexandra stated she did not notice this sign during her visit.
The sign indicates that if someone is identified as violent or otherwise “undesirable” from a safety standpoint, their name, date of birth, gender, postal code, and photo may be retained and shared with other Patronscan establishments.
Scassa argued that this sign raises various concerns regarding the adequacy of the notice provided.
For instance, she pointed out that it does not specify that particular incidents will be shared with other venues. In Alexandra’s situation, the venue at the Calgary Stampede was able to access information regarding her incident in the men’s restroom at the Winnipeg bar.
Scassa also noted that it does not clarify that the data is stored by a third party, nor does it specify how many establishments the information may be shared with or the geographic scope of such sharing.
Krystle Shore, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Waterloo who studies the intersection of surveillance technology and social issues, expressed that these types of notifications depend on individuals noticing and comprehending the fine print.
“We enter ambiguous territory when we consider a sign posted at a bar, positioned below a stand where someone might not be directly looking at it as they enter with a group of friends on a busy Friday night,” Shore explained.
Krystle Shore, a privacy expert examining surveillance, states that the processes leading to someone’s information being shared are subjective and can carry significant consequences. (Aastha Shetty/CBC)
She mentioned that the Patronscan disclosure sign presents several red flags—specifically, the use of the term undesirable.
“What does ‘undesirable’ mean? Undesirable to whom? In what context?” Shore questioned.
This system relies on the subjective judgment of an individual and can have serious repercussions, she noted.
“When we discuss the surveillance of those deemed undesirable, there’s a long history of who has been targeted by such labeling,” Shore added, highlighting that members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community have historically been categorized as “undesirables.”
Bans must be accompanied by signage: Patronscan
A Patronscan representative stated that the signage is mandatory for clients and has been updated as necessary following various privacy commission reviews.
The company will initiate an investigation if an individual contests a flag, the spokesperson indicated.
Alexandra is currently in the process of lodging an official complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, which is responsible for overseeing compliance with the nation’s privacy laws.
Ann Cavoukian, former privacy commissioner of Ontario, characterized the incident as shocking and suggested it merits investigation by the commissioner.
“This individual had no knowledge or awareness that this was occurring or that her information was going to be utilized in this way afterward,” she remarked.
Former Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian asserts that the federal commissioner should investigate the incident, labeling it as appalling. (CBC)
Alexandra expressed her intention to share her story to raise awareness among Canadians about how their data can be collected and distributed by third parties.
“In an era of increasing mass surveillance and the utilization of AI for these purposes, I believe someone needs to speak out when they notice that their rights are being infringed,” she concluded.
