There’s nothing many Aussies enjoy more than going out for night on the town. Yet for Sydneysiders, a drink with friends is about to mean having their photo ID cards (such as drivers’ licenses) scanned, recorded and checked against a privately-owned, linked-database of individuals banned from various venues.

New South Wales’ plans to introduce the ID scanning program in 35 late-night bars in Kings Cross to "curb violence" have garnered fierce condemnation from civil liberties groups and privacy advocates. The idea of handing the average bar staffer long-term responsibility over sensitive personal data is an immensely creepy proposition.

It appears the risks to patrons of blackmail, fraud and discrimination – using information stored in databases that could potentially be compromised – has been overlooked in the rush to implement the scheme. Rather than ensure government oversight of the scheme, the program has been left up to the whims of a cabal of bar owners, police and private operators. “The first we heard about it was the media articles,” said deputy privacy commissioner for NSW John McAteer. “It is unclear to us as to what the scheme is, who would operate it and how it would be governed.” So far, there’s been no public details given on how to get personal data removed from the system, or have a ban removed.

Of course, supporters of the ID card scanning programs have suggested only criminals need to worry about their privacy. This type of approach fails to mention that in 2010, federal privacy commissioner Karen Curtis was forced to issue a notification and advice to licensed venues over their obligations on the collection and handling of personal information, after it was revealed that some venue employees were trawling through scans of female patrons to grab their names and addresses.

Digitalised identification card scanning isn’t new. The program has been used in Geelong, Darwin, Brackenridge and Coolangatta for a number of years. And it hasn’t eradicated crime; in fact, there’s been anecdotal suggestions ID scanning drives potential criminal behaviour out of its usual haunts and into new venues further afield.

Over the last five years, there appears to have been a grand total of zero scholarly articles investigating the effectiveness and implications of the growing use of ID scanning programs across Australia. Meanwhile, under the Liquor Amendment (Kings Cross Plan of Management) Bill 2013, Kings Cross venues operating after midnight will be forced to pay for card scanning machines and the training of staff for a one-year, mandatory trial of the program.

Despite the lack of any peer-reviewed evidence proving that the program works, some local authorities are waiving normal procedure and throwing money at the idea. For instance, in Coober Pedy, the council waived the application of its usual procurement policy and paid ID-Tect to install four "alcohol management units" into three liquor outlets. The exercise has so far cost Coober Pedy $77,743.60.

Of course, the general public strongly dislikes the scheme, and with good cause: according to UK experts, one in 1,000 people will potentially be misidentified by card scanning technology, with their studies revealing “the biometrics of black, elderly and disabled people have a higher chance of being incorrectly matched against their true ID. People with eye problems also have a relatively high chance of inaccurate identification.”

Even the police have voiced concerns about the privacy implications of such technology. When ID-Tect’s "ID-Eye" program rolled out in Queensland in 2007, acting Brisbane central police superintendent Stephen Donnelly noted potential sharing of data across multiple venues would raise serious “privacy and discrimination issues." Yet the plan for Kings Cross specifically allows venues to share patrons’ information.

Under the Kings Cross program, personal data scanned from cards will be also retained by the linked-database for 30 days. Yet the Newcastle entertainment precinct ID scanning program (which the Kings Cross plan is based on) stores patron details for up to a year - and indefinitely stores details of people who are banned from venues. The Newcastle program website also states “information recorded will be stored securely on venue serverswhich are password protected and kept in alarmed offices.” In other words, the program has essentially pitted average Aussie pub owners’ digital security skills up against hackers and international gangs engaged in identity fraud.

ID-Tect’s website also fails to confirm if servers storing personal data are located in Australia. Yet a little bit of research pulls up the fact ID-Tect is partners with Card Scanning Solutions Inc (CSSN), a US-based corporation founded by Israeli biometrics specialist Danny Hatzav. Before Kings Cross plunges ahead with a trial of the program, the Australian government should at the very least require the public is informed as to wether ID-Tect is sharing Australian pub patron’s personal data with CSSN, which is subject to the US Patriot Act.

ID card scanning programs – for all their self-claims of “duty of care” for patrons – are comprehensively unevaluated corporate money-making projects, and alarm bells should be ringing. Just because we have the ability to use new technology is a wholly insufficient reason to implement it.

Until our government comes to its senses and starts looking after our rights, vote with your feet: refuse to drink anywhere that records and scans ID and support venues that oppose digital and biometric surveillance of people just wanting to enjoy a drink with friends.