People Ban: OR Portland

Recording Everything
New scanners in downtown clubs raise privacy questions—and may be illegal.
2/14/2014
By Kate Willson
Multnomah County and Portland police this week suspended a new program that supplied data-gathering ID scanners to Old Town bars after WW raised questions about whether it was legal.
The state-funded program allowed Portland police to equip downtown bars and clubs in recent weeks with high-tech ID scanners that captured patrons’ names, ages and photos for upload to a central database, which police could then access.
There’s no indication patrons knew they were being tracked.?
“We tried to say ‘no’ at the very beginning, and police strongly encouraged that we should do it,” says Mike Reed, general manager of the Boiler Room and Jones Bar, both located in Old Town. “We don’t want to track people’s every move. We considered that a possible issue.”
Despite his misgivings, Reed gave the scanners a try. So did a dozen other downtown clubs.?
With government agencies already surreptitiously gathering information without warrants, the Portland program raised questions about transparency and privacy.
It might also have been illegal.?
“It really is an illuminating example of where our privacy laws are, and our disconnect in a modern digital world,” says Becky Straus, lobbyist for ACLU Oregon.?
Straus is referring to a 2009 Oregon law that limits companies’ legal ability to collect, store or share information from ID scanners. Straus says she was unaware Portland bars were collecting such data, or that police could grab it.
“We had wondered, when we wandered around Old Town, whether bars were complying with the swiping law,” she says.
Club manager Reed says police assured bar owners that it was legal to gather customers’ information and to share it with law enforcement.?
“To our understanding, we’re doing everything within the law,” Reed says. “Police were definitely the big promoter of the scanners.”? Neither Portland police nor the city attorney was aware of the 2009 law until WW raised the question. “We‘re glad when someone brings this up. We want to do what’s best to protect public safety and protect people’s rights,” Multnomah County spokesman David Austin tellsWW.
Austin said the county is meeting with state and local law enforcement in the coming week to determine how to move forward
“If we learn that information was being maintained in violation of state law, we would seek to remedy the situation, to make sure the technology is used within compliance,” says Portland police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson.?
He says the police don’t own the scanners, and so aren’t responsible for how they were used.?
“It’s an issue between the bars and the company,” he says. “We recommend a lot of things to people, but it’s up to the individual to make sure it’s compliant.”
The program was designed to combat underaged drinking.?
In 2011, the state awarded Multnomah County a three-year grant to reduce alcohol abuse. Last year, the county gave $60,000 to Lines for Life, a nonprofit that works on reducing substance abuse, to purchase scanners for Old Town bars and clubs.?
The bars used the scanners, Lines for Life owned them and Portland police controlled the devices. Police ensured clubs were using them.
“If we don’t use it, they know,” a downtown bouncer tells WW.
A few club owners turned down the free scanners. One owner says he added surveillance cameras when police asked.? “I happily installed those. But this was going too far,” the club owner says. “It felt invasive.”
The scanners, made by Servall Data Systems of Calgary, Alberta, collect patrons’ names and ages while a camera captures their photo. The information is stored in a database shared by all clubs with the scanners for 90 days.?
If a club ejects a patron, the bouncer can flag that person in the database. If that customer then tries to enter another bar, the database alerts the other club.?
When a crime occurs, Portland police can ask Servall for access to the data—no subpoena needed, says Servall president Alberio Frota. Bars already freely share with police the data they gather, say bouncers at multiple clubs across the city.
In October, Tiffany Jenks, 35, was shot to death in Blue Lake Park in Fairview. Police quickly arrested three suspects—based in part, court records show, on evidence gleaned from ID scanners.?
Staff at Mystic and Club 205 in Hazelwood had swiped the IDs and snapped photos of the three suspects. Both clubs? purchased the scanning systems on their own.
Other cities are already using the sophisticated scanners.
Vancouver, B.C., bars began using ID scanners in the early 2000s, and crime in the city’s bar district plummeted within six months, says Vance Campbell, a club owner who spearheaded the initiative. The city of San Francisco also encourages its downtown clubs to invest in ID scanners.?
Some Portland bar employees say the scanners keep police and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission happy. Most say the scanners make their jobs easier.
“If someone hits me, I don’t have to beat their ass,” says a bouncer at another eastside strip club that purchased a scanner. Instead, the club simply turns the assailant’s record over to police.?
But others worry they are helping create Big Brother.
“I like having the scanner,” says a bouncer who asked not to be named because he’s not authorized to speak to the press. “But what does that data do? People don’t know; we haven’t given them the choice.”
Some younger customers in Old Town told WW they didn’t know what the ID scanners could do, nor did they care.?
“Millennials don’t care,” said Scott Lansing of Portland, standing outside the Rainbow Roomas two of his friends wrestled in the snow. “We’ve just been brought up to expect that everyone has access to that information.”
Maybe some people don’t care, says public defender Chris O’Connor. But plenty of people would have a problem, he adds, if they knew their nighttime entertainment could be tracked.
“Maybe some Mormons don’t want people to know they’re going into a bar, maybe someone doesn’t want his probation officer to know he’s going into a bar,” O’Connor says. “Maybe so-and-so doesn’t want his wife to know where he’s been over the last 90 days.”

---

Smoking ban extension proposed for city buildings

October 22, 2007
By RANDY NEVES, kgw.com Staff

?City Commissioner Randy Leonard wants to ban smoking within 50 feet of the entrances to Portland city buildings.
?
?It would be the third new restriction on city smokers within a year.
?
?Everyone who works in the Portland building knows the smoking rule:
?
?”Outside smoking is okay but inside you can’t allow it,” explained smoker Vasu Kandimalla.
???????
?But soon, if Commissioner Leonard has his way, Kandimalla’s favorite outdoor smoking zone will go away.
?
?”What smokers oftentimes don’t seem not to understand is my right not to breathe their smoke,” said Leonard.
?
?He has helped pass smoking bans at Pioneer Courthouse Square -and in certain areas in city parks- this past year.
?
?Now city transportation worker Steve Oswald is wondering where he’s supposed to go to smoke.
?
?”(Go) stand out in the street, I would supposed,” he said.
?
?”I think there are enough people who smoke cigarettes that I think some provision should be made for them.”
?
?”I don’t agree with (the ban). I am a smoker,” said Jill Carothers, a parks and rec worker who thinks her method of stress relief is the victim of bias.
?
?”We prefer to smoke and other people prefer to get a chai latte, you know, which you can have at your desk,” she explained.
?
?Leonard is unmoved by those arguments.
?
?”If more smokers were a little bit more considerate of that people like me wouldn’t be taking notice.”
?
?Leonard wants to ban front-door puffing at all 150 or so city buildings, including city hall, city-owned parking garages, community centers, and fire and police facilities.
?
?U nion leaders say they’ll fight any rule change or at least demand that it’s negotiated under fair labor practices.
?
?Leonard hopes to bring his smoking ban proposal to city council next week.

---

City considers smoking ban for Pioneer Courthouse Square

But a proposed no-smoking ban for downtown’s Pioneer Courthouse Square, he said, is Etiquette 101: You just don’t waltz into someone’s living room and light up.

“The square is our living room, and it should be smoke-free,” Saltzman said today, defending a proposal that could carry up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine for those repeatedly caught using the space as an ashtray.

Saltzman, the city’s parks commissioner, isn’t worrying about trying to get the stink out of the sofa and drapes (Portland’s living room is still pretty much just brown brick and a Starbuck’s). Rather, he said, the place — technically a city park — can’t be “family friendly” if secondhand smoke wafts among the masses.

Ultimately, Saltzman, who has the power to adopt such rules on his own, wants to stamp out smoking 25 feet from every playground in Portland’s parks.

Of course, at this point, Saltzman is promising to sign off on an idea for the square that has yet to officially land on his desk. Although there is a proposal, the 40,000-square-foot square’s board of trustees is still researching its viability, executive director Jennifer Polver said.

“But it’s great to hear the commissioner’s office is willing to support our efforts,” Polver said. “Officially, I don’t want to speculate on when something will happen.”

A formal proposal for a prohibition could be months away, she said.

That said, Greg Goodman, president of City Center Parking and a trustee, thinks the ban is inevitable. “Based on everything I’m hearing,” he said, “yes, it’s going to happen.”

Goodman said other cities, including Chicago and Seattle, have implemented no-smoking rules in similar public gathering spots.

Smoking already is banned in two areas in the square: the MAX platforms and the Starbuck’s patio.

Although a total ban would keep secondhand smoke out of the faces of children visiting the square, it could also push away another group of youths — street kids.

For years, downtown businesses have tried to find tactful — and legal — ways to shoo away street kids who hang out in the square, often just sitting with their belongings and smoking.

But Goodman said health concerns and cleanliness, not loitering, are behind the proposal. “Really, I don’t know if vagrants smoke or don’t smoke,” he said.

John Hren, head of Portland Patrol Inc., which polices the square for the Portland Business Alliance, said people repeatedly caught smoking under the rule likely would be excluded from the property.

During lunch today, a large crowd sat on the brick steps eating, talking and watching a dog show. Fiona O’Grady and Cornelius Anderson smoked cigarettes near a food stand. Both said they would support a no-smoking rule, as long as it wasn’t intended to exclude certain people from the square.

“That’s classism,” O’Grady, a 26-year-old legal secretary, said. “Not cool.”

Anderson, a 31-year-old furniture installer, said the ban wouldn’t take care of the loitering problem, since street kids could go across the street to smoke, putting them closer to businesses.

But if it’s a matter of making the city healthier, “it would be great,” O’Grady said. “I don’t smoke at home. I have children, and I wouldn’t want them around a crowd of people (who are) smoking.”