The SCG declined to elaborate on their policy,including what the data is used for once it’s collected and whether it’s stored or shared. A spokesman said patrons could refer to the information available on itswebsite.
“For safety and security purposes,facial recognition technology in combination with CCTV may be in operation within this area,” the SCG’s policy stated. “These technologies may film and/or photograph you to identify whether you pose a risk to the safety and security of the premises or are authorised to enter the premises. By entering the premises you agree to use of these technologies in accordance with the Security Monitoring Policy.”
The MCG collects patrons’ face-prints,but little is known about what happens to the data once it’s gathered.Credit:Getty Images
Venues NSW,owner and operator of the SCG and Allianz stadiums,did not respond to questions,but previously told Choice:“We abide strictly with our privacy obligations. We do not monetise facial recognition data”.
Most of the stadiums using facial recognition technology cite safety and security as reason for its use. A spokesperson for TEG,the owner of Qudos Bank Arena,said the technology was solely utilised to “identify any persons of interest”.
Notably,Accor Stadium – where Swift will perform her Sydney shows – does not collect biometric data,nor do Marvel Stadium,Optus Stadium or Commbank Stadium. Perth’s RAC Arena and Brisbane’s Suncorp Stadium are less clear,as their venue operator ASM Global’s privacy policy states facial recognition technology may be used when available at the venue. ASM Global did not respond to questions.
Loading
Digital rights activist and program lead at Digital Rights Watch Samantha Floreani said use of facial recognition technology was contributing to mass surveillance,where everyone is treated as a suspect by default.
“More needs to be done than just letting people know that facial surveillance is in use,” Floreani said. “Transparency about a harmful practice without challenging the practice itself achieves very little. We should be questioning whether it’s reasonable to use this technology at all.”
Most venues do not explicitly ask patrons for consent to collect the data,Floreani said,stripping them of any meaningful choice or agency around attending a venue that collects sensitive personal information.
Choice’s Bower added that information about facial recognition was often not available at the point of sale on ticketing websites.
“You’d only know[the technology is used] if you either arrive at the venue and happen to see the signage or if you go to the specific venue website and look for the conditions of entry,” Bower said. “That’s just not enough transparency for consumers to know that this is happening,let alone enough information to make a decision about whether or not they’d still like to go.”
Everything about biometric data – including how it’s collected,what it’s used for,the way it’s stored (and for how long),whether children are included and the need for consent – should be regulated by the federal government,Bower said.
This is not the first time the collection of biometric data has sparked controversy. In June,Rolling Stone reported that over 100 artists,including Rage Against the Machine and Wheatus,said they would boycott all venues using facial recognition technology. In July,the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner revealed it would investigate Kmart and Bunnings over the use of the technology in stores.