Recent reports have ignited a firestorm of concern regarding the use of **PatronScan** at several LGBTQ+ venues in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood. While initial attention focused on the system's alleged photographic capture of patrons and potential for facial recognition, a deeper privacy issue has emerged. For years, **PatronScan** has marketed itself not merely as an ID verification tool but as a comprehensive system enabling bars and clubs to identify patrons, maintain records, and share this information across a network of venues. A 2019 investigation highlighted how **PatronScan** established a network allowing participating establishments to flag patrons and disseminate this data. ### California Law and ID Scanning The legality of **PatronScan**'s business model in California, particularly its practice of scanning IDs and sharing information, is under intense scrutiny. California’s ID privacy law, amended in 2018 to specifically include ID “scans,” explicitly prohibits businesses from “retaining or using” information from scanned ID cards except for limited purposes, such as age verification, legal compliance, or fraud prevention. This raises profound concerns for Californians, especially within LGBTQ+ spaces, which have historically served as sanctuaries free from tracking, monitoring, or listing. The collection of data from government-issued IDs to construct databases detailing individuals' movements, associations, and access to public spaces poses a significant privacy threat. **PatronScan** has stated that it does not perform facial recognition in North America and claims compliance with California law. Their published FAQ asserts the legality of their kiosks in the state. ### Legislative Scrutiny and Database Building In 2018, the California Legislature delved into **PatronScan**'s operations during bill analyses. The California Senate Judiciary Committee, reviewing **PatronScan**'s own materials, discovered that the company had amassed information on 561,087 customers in Sacramento alone within the first five months of 2018 – a staggering figure for a city whose population had just exceeded 500,000. Lawmakers also found that, at the time, **PatronScan** retained information for a minimum of 90 days, sometimes longer, shared data among participating bars, and maintained bans for an average of over 19 years. A **PatronScan** “Public Safety Report” even utilized 10,000 scans from a single day to report on “where customers live, how far they have traveled, and how many different venues the customers patronized.” This clearly indicated a database-building operation, not just simple ID checks. Immigrants’ rights groups, such as the **Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)**, voiced concerns about these expanding ID databases. They highlighted the “significant immigration consequences” of being labeled a “threat to public safety” within such a database, potentially leading to deportation or denial of immigration relief. Currently, **PatronScan** states it retains personal information for all customers for 21 days, and for flagged customers for up to five years. This data includes name, date of birth, photograph, gender, zip code, and entry times into specific bars. Such databases represent a serious privacy risk, vulnerable to theft, employee misuse, government seizure, and executive repurposing. ### California Law Remains Clear: ID-Scan Databases Are Banned In 2018, California lawmakers explicitly closed a perceived loophole. Existing law already forbade businesses from retaining or using information from “swiped” driver's licenses, except for narrowly defined legal or fraud prevention purposes. After examining companies like **PatronScan**, the Legislature amended the law to ensure these same restrictions applied to “scanned” IDs. **PatronScan** opposed this amendment, arguing for its ability to share information across bars to facilitate admission decisions. Despite their opposition, the bill became law. Yet, **PatronScan** continues to market a system that appears to retain information from scanned IDs and enables participating venues to flag and share patron data across its network. This raises significant questions about the compatibility of these practices with California's ID privacy law. Bar and nightlife venue owners utilizing **PatronScan** should reconsider its implications for their patrons and explore a return to traditional, visual ID checks. These methods have proven effective for decades in preventing underage entry without the severe privacy risks associated with creating private databases of bar patrons. For venues serving vulnerable communities, such as immigrants or the LGBTQ+ community, the stakes are even higher. It is concerning to see prominent LGBTQ+ nightlife spots adopting **PatronScan**. A venue cannot credibly claim to be a safe space while feeding its patrons’ data into a third-party database. These businesses should reject **PatronScan**, revert to standard ID verification, and reaffirm their commitment to customer privacy and security.