How Much Data Is Transmitted in a Scan of Your ID?

In your column this week [Dr.Know, WW, July 16], you mentioned how a digital ID transmits more info than a physical ID. But most places scan your ID barcode anyway. So what’s the difference in the physical scan and communication of data of where you’ve been than with a digital ID? —Daniel

You weren’t the only reader to make this point, Daniel. In theory, we could all avoid ID scans entirely by not making purchases that involve cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, firearms or pornography—all the things that make life worth living—but I doubt that anyone for whom this is a realistic course of action reads this column.

Luckily, the scans aren’t as invasive as you think. Most folks assume that retailers log your name and address every time they scan your ID. That’s not an unreasonable suspicion, but they don’t. Oregon retailers are legally barred from saving any data from an age-check scan.

I realize that sounds a bit like “Epstein killed himself, end of story,” but let’s be real: What is 7-Eleven gonna do with a bunch of random ages and blood types that they’re not even allowed to admit they have? Maybe there’s a nefarious plan, but in that world what you really need to worry about is the microchip Bill Gates snuck into your brain with the COVID vaccine.

In fact, not only are retailers not allowed to keep your data, they may not even be allowed to scan you at all. As I reported last year, many retailers require ID for age-restricted purchases no matter how old the buyer is. A couple of lawsuits currently wending their way through the courts (against Astro Gas and Plaid Pantry, respectively) argue that such policies aren’t legal.

Oregon law forbids scanning IDs unless it’s done to verify the age of someone “about whom there is any reasonable doubt of the person’s having reached 21 years of age.” I’m no Matlock, but that does sound like it should exclude the grizzled septuagenarians who’ve written to me complaining about the policy.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so, either. A bill that would have amended the law to explicitly permit scanning all comers was introduced in this year’s Oregon legislative session. (It died in committee.) At the public hearing, only two people spoke in favor. One of them was Plaid Pantry’s attorney. You connect the dots.

Questions? Send them to dr.know@wweek.com.