ID scanning at bars banned but bars continue to violate privacy

Here's an article I submitted to the Nav.

Imagine living in a country where private corporations forced citizens to allow the scanning of their ID as a condition for entry into their businesses. Grocery stores, malls, concerts and festivals might be the sort of places where this ID scanning would occur, and the data collected could be stored by the company for a year or more. It would be simple - and in the company's best interests - to get the ID information they collect synchronized with our medical records, allowing them to prevent anyone with serious health problems from gaining entry. For liability reasons, those businesses could then refuse services to any individuals they wished, based on the criteria they decide, with information gained from our government issued IDs and maybe even medical records.

Now imagine a private company starting along this road of ID scanning, even though the provincial government's privacy commissioner has ordered it to stop. This is happening right now in B.C. at some of our local bars, and this subject is larger than just security at bars.

On July 21st '09 the Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis released Order P09-01, in response to a complaint about the scanning of a bar customer’s driver’s license. The complained was made under B.C.’s Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), which regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by businesses.

Here is an excerpt of the press release (see link below) that accompanied this decision.

Section 7(2) says a business “must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service.” The Commissioner accepted that it is “necessary” to collect personal information of certain customers for the purpose of operating a nightlife establishment, but not “to develop and maintain a personal profile containing the personal information of all customers in order to effectively track the few who may be removed from, and subsequently barred from re-entering, an establishment. Certainly, the full scope of information which is collected by Wild Coyote and the length for which it is retained is not necessary to achieve that purpose” (para. 98). The Commissioner therefore found that “a requirement for consent to the collection of personal information through the TreoScope system is a requirement for consent to the collection and use of information ‘beyond what is necessary’ for providing the service of operating a nightlife establishment in the terms I have described” (para. 98).

It seems clear from the excerpt above that storing a person's ID for extended periods of time is not allowed; that doing so is beyond what could be considered reasonable. Still, after this decision was made, the local bars with this data collection system did continue to scan and store ID information. More from the press release:

Section 11 of PIPA says a business “may collect personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances”. The Commissioner found that, under s. 11 of PIPA, the collection of personal information was not appropriate in the particular circumstances, including given the nature and amount of personal information being collected. He found that “it is reasonable... for it to be able, in order to preserve a safe environment for customers, to identify those individuals who have been determined to be violent, or otherwise undesirable for re-entry from a safety perspective, and thus improve customer safety” (para. 127). He went on to say, however, that “much of the information collected by the TreoScope system”, including driver’s license numbers, “does not further this safety purpose”, adding, “Moreover, I have not been provided with any reason related to improved customer safety for an establishment’s retention of any information at all relating to customers who are not involved in violent incidents” (para. 127).

What this means is that it's not necessary for a company to collect and store personal information of patrons who are not violent. While the businesses obviously need to keep violent people out, it should be able to do so without having to collect and store the personal information of other patrons.

You might ask, "what about our personal safety? Isn't this a good thing?" The commissioner addresses this stating that "I am well aware of, indeed share, public concern about gang violence and public safety in British Columbia... I have decided that it is reasonable for Wild Coyote to be able, in order to preserve a safe environment for customers, to identify those individuals who have been determined to be violent or otherwise undesirable for re-entry from a safety perspective, and thus improve customer safety. For the reasons given above, however, the collection of personal information as a whole does not comply with PIPA. In this light, and in view of the reasons given above, I invite –– indeed, strongly encourage––those involved to seek the views of this Office if they wish to find a solution for collecting personal information of a nature, and in a manner, that complies with PIPA."

Loukidelis's decision to ban scanning of ID at bars upholds Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To hold a prospective patron's personal information as a condition of entry into a bar is an unreasonable invasion of a person's privacy.

Our local bars were told that their efforts were too heavy handed, but they continued to scan IDs, collect personal information and store it for up to a year. Isn't it odd that the bars seemed to think they could avoid B.C.s privacy laws in an effort to curb lawlessness?

The company that gathers our personal information had been collecting more than necessary, and storing it for up to a year. The public, government and media took notice. Recognizing that this data collection system could be shut down, Owen Cameron, the owner of Vancouver-based TreoScope Technologies which created the software used to collect information, contacted the B.C. Privacy Commissioner. A compromise was met. The drivers license numbers of patrons will no longer be collected, and the data that is collected will be stored for no longer than 24 hours. This is similar to recent events in Alberta. It has been one year since Alberta's privacy commissioner ruled scanning licenses is a privacy violation and that decision was upheld by a provincial court in March.

Every society must decide what rights each individual will have, and what power or control the government or corporations may have over the citizens. Here in Canada we tend to value our personal freedoms very highly, while also appreciating the services and protection provided by our government.



recent media coverage:
http://www.vancouversun.com/scanning+comply+with+privacy+laws/1919993/story.html

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/54005187.html

A previous version of this was published in papers and can be read online here and here.

For more information:
press release (pdf link)
http://www.oipcbc.org/news/2009Releases/1NR-OrderP09-01.pdf

Order (large PDF link)
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/PIPAOrders/2009/OrderP09-01.pdf

additional press release
http://www.oipcbc.org/news/2009Releases/NR-BarWatchConsultation.pdf

Stop Cable Bay boundary extension before Aug 5th

I recently phoned city hall about this controversial development and “negative option” approval process being used to bypass voter involvement. To be clear, the actual development isn’t what’s being voted on; the expansion of the city boundary to include this resort and golf course is the subject. It’s the developer who wants the city boundary expanded and our council has basically made sure that the developer will get their way. This is a big deal because it allows further sprawling of the city, and shows that Nanaimo isn’t serious about sustainable development and urban renewal through increasing population density.

It will take a decade to get proper transit service (as the RDN suggests) if the city doesn’t invest in building up the residential, commercial and industrial areas that already exist WITHIN the city limits. By expanding city limits and allowing developments to GROW our city, they prevent our central Nanaimo population from being concentrated enough to support ½ hr bus wait times instead of the current hour long wait between most busses.

If you wish to get more information you can call Bruce Anderson, Manager of Community Planning at 755-4483. Contact your city council to let them know what you think of this: http://www.nanaimo.ca/cityhall/index_inside.asp?id=213&collection=57

Click on the link below to get the elector response form that you can print and submit, or phone city hall at 250-755-4405 to have them mail it to you.
http://www.nanaimo.ca/uploadedfiles/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/StatutoryAAPPublicNotice.pdf


In the news:
City Deserves Better Effort
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/opinion/23202169.html

Residents hope to stop project
http://www.canada.com/harbourcitystar/news/story.html?id=98be0e77-5e58-4bba-a800-b30c147967b6

2007 Year In Review Environment And More

This will be my last post of the year.

I'm going to share a few news pieces covering environmental stories of 2007, but before I do I'd like to reflect on my own personal experiences this year.

The year started with talk of a spring election (much like we're seeing again) and I was hard at work organizing and facilitating Green Party training sessions back in southern Alberta. In the end there was no federal election, but my wife did decide to run for the Green Party of Alberta in a provincial byelection in the late spring. I had started full time work at the Tyrrell museum again, and she resigned so she could stay at home with our son. As soon as the byelection was over Jen wanted to work again, so she got a part time job and we saved up a bit of cash. In September a job opportunity opened up for Jen here on Vancouver Island, and obviously she got the job. We made the move from Drumheller AB to Nanaimo BC in about a month. Her job here is great, our son loves the mild weather and the trees, and I'm starting to get some gigs playing around Nanaimo. I also have a part time job to make ends meet. I'm very excited about the direction our lives are moving in! Next move: selling our house back in Drumheller, and possibly buying some land and building some kind of green home. We've been looking at yurts and manufactured homes as well as small condos or townhouses, and we still don't know exactly what move to make.

I've taken up a supportive peripheral role in the local GPC electoral district assoc. We have a great candidate here and I look forward to the next federal election when I'll be door and phone canvassing during the campaign. I left a big hole back in Alberta, but I'm confident that the Crowfoot EDA, working with the provincial organizer, will be able to find a solid candidate for the next election. As of the fall council elections, Alberta has a strong and capable representative on the GPC Federal Council in Mark Taylor.

Throughout the year my blogging efforts had me exploring and learning about energy, economics and how both subjects are so very intertwined with the environment. Thanks to many visitors here on my blog who forced discussion and debate, I'm now much better informed on these subjects.

For more on specific subjects, or to see my posts over the year, please view the right hand columns listing my blog posts by subject and by month.

Here are a few news summaries of 2007 environmental news.

See you in the new year!


2007: The year in environment
22 December 2007 NewScientist.com
Catherine Brahic

The Magnificent '07
The top green stories of 2007
By David Roberts and Lisa Hymas
20 Dec 2007

Twelve Environmental Victories in 2007
Environmental Defense
03-Dec-2007

ABC Australia - Year in Review - Environment
By Elaine Ford - Dec 19, 2007

News review 2007: Reality of climate change hits home
22 December 2007 - New Scientist

A Carbon Tax, the Arts and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

There is a point where ideology can exceed common sense, and one might wonder if that is happening with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

One month ago Maureen Bader, BC director of the CTF, came out against arts funding stating that government subsidies to the arts should be abolished. Bader sees the arts as business activity, but it is more appropriate to compare investment in the arts with investment in things like parks and recreation. Perhaps Bader isn't aware of the difference between investments and subsidies.

According to a 2001-02 Statistics Canada report, with an investment of $6.8 billion from three levels of government, the arts and culture sector directly employed 740,000 people and generated $26 billion for the economy. I'm sure Bader doesn't want to hurt our economy, so it might be that she just doesn't understand the concept of EROI (economic return on investment).

Then Maureen Bader misrepresented carbon taxes while making fun of global warming 'theorists' <--(her term).

Poverty is a serious concern, and Bader's use of the issue to breed fear of a carbon tax is misleading. By suggesting that we imagine carbon taxes "so high that people can't afford to heat their homes in the winter" in the opening of her missive entitled The Carbon Tax Poverty Effect, she tries to scare us out of using critical thinking to examine the situation. By listing "global warming theorists" as beneficiaries of a carbon tax, Bader manages to question the reality of climate change while suggesting that public concerns about climate change are somehow preyed upon by scientists for financial gain. Ridiculous! This suggestion seems more like a call from Bader to question the science of climate change than a sincere concern for Canadians living in poverty.

It is irresponsible of Bader to haphazardly dismiss the seriousness of climate change, and by conflating the subject with poverty she leads the reader to conclude that action on climate change in the form of a carbon tax will invariably lead to widespread poverty. It's also irresponsible to dismiss the concept of a carbon tax without first investigating how it could be implemented correctly, or why many respected economists support the idea.

Only one national political party is calling for a carbon tax and suggesting that the revenue be used in part to reduce income and payroll taxes, as well as kick start green energy industries. This tax shift can be as close to revenue neutral as we want, and Canadians can decide for themselves if they wish to spend their tax savings in ways that reduce or increase carbon emissions and climate change.

In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would likely impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances. The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship. We cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes, and using tax shifting to achieve fairness is a way to make it work.


More reading:

Arts ire for canadian taxpayers federation

Is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Right-Wing?

Canadian Taxpayer Federation being Dishonest with Canadians

Get The Prices Right (on tax shifting and GPC policy)

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party

Video: Dr. Mark Jaccard talks about carbon taxes

Carbon Tax FAQ

from the link above:
Q: Won’t low income and rural people be hardest hit by a carbon tax?

* In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances.
* The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship.
* We as a society cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes. It’s much better to use tax shifting to achieve fairness.

- - -

UPDATE (Feb 21st, 2008) Click here for a good blog post on the new BC carbon tax by Vancouver Island federal Green Party candidate Brian Gordon.