Poker machines, more commonly known as “pokies”, are a staple of the cultural and economic landscape of many towns and cities in Australia. But as venues continue to experiment with new technology to control access, self-exclusion and behaviour monitoring, facial recognition in gaming venues has become a flashpoint.
On the one hand, supporters make arguments of harm minimisation and compliance; on the other, critics caution against the overreach of surveillance, the insecurity of data, and the slippery slopes.
The appearance of facial recognition in poker-machine venues raises many questions about where the balance should lie regarding the intrusion into biometrics, particularly when public safety or regulatory enforcement is at stake. And how do we balance civil liberties and privacy in public entertainment venues?
The Privacy Threats: Surveillance and Misidentification
Yet, there are grave concerns regarding the use of biometric technology in public venues. Facial recognition data is highly sensitive biometric data, faceprints or encoded facial images that are considered “sensitive information” under privacy law. Unlike a password, you cannot change your face. If this information is leaked or abused, the damages are of a long-term nature.
Recently, the Privacy Commissioner in Australia made a striking privacy statement in a case involving automated CCTV matching, declaring that the retail use of facial recognition is unlawful. The decision stressed that collecting sensitive biometric information without consent and without adequate notice violates privacy principles. The decision highlights the point that even if intentions appear innocuous, inappropriate use of facial recognition can violate legal boundaries.
Another risk is misidentification in the context of the pokies venues. False matches can result due to lighting conditions, camera angles, facial coverings, or bias in the algorithm. If the game is wrong, an innocent patron could be denied access, questioned or stigmatised. Trust is fragile, and misleading accusations undermine user trust in the system.
In addition to mistakes, there is the risk of mission creep. A system designed to flag self-excluded gamblers could creep towards more general surveillance, such as detecting underage gamblers, intoxication, or marketing profiling. Already, some lobbying groups have called for exemptions to new biometric legislation because, in their opinion, enforcing an exclusion requires venues to retain the flexibility to store biometric data. Critics caution that such carve-outs threaten to undermine the overall protection of privacy.
The Promise: Using Self-Exclusion and Mitigating Harm
One of the most attractive aspects of facial recognition at venues is its ability to enhance self-exclusion processes. In many states throughout Australia, problem gamblers can apply to be excluded from entering gaming venues. But enforcement has historically relied on visual ID verification or memory, which is susceptible to human error.
By installing camera systems that scan faces at entrances and compare them with a database of patrons who should not be allowed into the venue, venues aim to automate the discovery process. In New South Wales, for example, pubs and clubs were slated to use facial recognition to assist in identifying self-excluded gamblers when entering gaming precincts. The system is designed to create alerts that staff can use to intervene to stop that individual from gambling.
From the operator’s point of view, facial recognition is a beautiful tool: It is easy on staff, it standardises enforcement and can even act as a deterrent. In theory, it is helpful to lower the risk of relapse in vulnerable gamblers and can demonstrate to regulatory bodies that venues are taking their obligations seriously.
Some venues are merging facial recognition with loyalty programs or VIP systems to seamlessly combine security, customer service and identification. Similarly, online platforms aim to enhance user convenience through features such as online pokies free spins, which offer easy access and rewards without compromising user control or safety
Legislative and Regulatory Environment
Australia’s federal and state laws are now struggling to find a balance in the regulation of facial recognition in public places. Under the Privacy Act 1988, there are exceptions to the general rule that an entity must have the consent of a person to collect sensitive information. Licensing and gaming regulators have proposed codes of practice to limit the ways facial recognition can be used in venues, including requirements on data retention, accuracy standards, oversight and consent requirements.
In NSW, changes currently being consulted on would make facial recognition a mandatory requirement in hotels and clubs with pokie machines, and they would also include a draft code of practice to govern its use. This consultation is presented as part of a wider regulatory package, which is focused on improving exclusion registers and uniformity between venues.
Several venues in Queensland and South Australia are already using facial recognition systems. But the national digital identity system that is in the works is likely to limit some biometric practices, particularly one-to-many comparisons in which a camera checks a face against a massive database of people who are excluded from the program. There are debates about the standardisation of biometric storage regulations, the retention limits they impose, and the stringent purpose restriction.
Regulators and privacy authorities emphasise the importance of privacy impact assessment, technical measures, and transparency. Use of facial recognition is only justified if it is “reasonably necessary” for the purpose, and alternatives should be explored, such as identity cards or exclusion mechanisms that do not require a more intrusive approach.
Business Case and Competition Pressures
Ultimately, in an environment where regulatory pressure and public attention are mounting, the business case for using facial recognition in gambling venues becomes even stronger. As harm reduction becomes a core justification for new gambling reform, compliance will become a key indicator of how venues are faring. Facial recognition serves as a visible and measurable tool.