[ad_1]
The rollout of facial recognition technology in all New South Wales pubs and clubs will show how business will collect biometric data in the future before the law has a chance to catch up, experts warn.
The NSW government this week introduced new laws to allow facial recognition in all pubs and clubs, although it has yet to enact rules governing its rollout.
Clubs NSW – which is already being used in about 100 licensed venues – said it will be used to fight problem gambling by matching people with images of the industry’s self-isolation system. Fingerprints of other people in the spaces will be erased, the lobby group said.
A spokesman said the scheme was “compliant” with the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles and “contains strict safeguards for the use and disclosure of biometric information”.
While the federal Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) enforces the privacy law, the proliferation of facial recognition technology in Australia is “of serious concern”, and current laws are not designed to deal with it, experts say.
“There are enough holes in the privacy laws to drive a truck through,” said Nick Davies, professor of emerging technology at the University of Technology Sydney.
“Currently we do not have a uniform standard around its use. For example, we know nothing about who operates this system and how its scope of use is regulated.
The clubs’ announcement this week coincides with the passing of new legislation by the NSW Parliament giving the industry the power to “collect biometric data from people on registered club premises”.
Speaking to Parliament, Liquor and Gaming Minister Kevin Anderson said the use of the technology would be governed by the OAIC, with rules governing its use such as signage, purpose of data collection, deletion time limits and other privacy protections.
Although these rules have not yet been drafted, but consumer information advocate Kate Bower said it was the main issue.
“The problem at the moment is that the uses of facial recognition technology are expanding and we don’t have regulations and safeguards to fall back on,” she said.
“The usage is being dictated on a case-by-case basis. Businesses decide what the appropriate uses are rather than people.
Earlier this year, retailers Bunnings and Kmart announced they would end facial recognition technology in stores after an investigation by Choice said the companies were using the technology for “security and theft prevention.”
Clubs say the technology in this case is being developed as an injury-reduction measure, but Bower said the lack of transparency around its use makes it impossible to know what safeguards are in place.
“At the moment we believe that Clubs NSW have done a proper privacy review and have the right systems in place, but they have not been clear about how it works,” she said.
Last month, Davis, along with former Australian Human Rights Commission chief Edward Santow, released a new report calling for a model law to address the spread of the technology.
Under the model law, companies or government agencies using facial recognition technology must assess human rights risks and demonstrate why the technology is necessary.
On the issue of gambling harm-reduction, Bower said it was unclear why facial recognition technology was needed.
“I think that when any business wants to implement this kind of privacy-invasive technology, it’s important to consider all the options available, and if there are less invasive options, they should be prioritized,” she said.
There are several steps bars and clubs can take before taking this drastic step. Obviously, they are very resistant to implementing the cashless gambling card for their own reasons, but even the simple security checks that should be used now seem preferable.
[ad_2]
Source link
