In the UK, pubs have a system to share data on local troublemakers. I know a lot of people in the business (a family member is a pub manager) and it's entirely used to keep people out who have committed acts of aggression. The info shared is "X pub has banned Y person for Z reason." Other pubs can do the same if they choose. That way, if one pub owner is known to be overly ban-happy, the others aren't obliged to go along with it. You quickly learn which owners have sense and which don't. And the bans are almost always time-limited.
And yeah, pubs in the UK generally have CCTV. The retention period is short, the data is held by the pub, not shared with the police unless the police request it, and it's one of the only ways an assault in a pub will be prosecuted. If someone kicks off on you, that footage can be the difference between you (or them) being charged or not.
So a system like that can be run responsibly, protect patrons, and not be a surveillance hell. Whether that's what's happening in the 'Stro is another question. I'd say that anything beyond face, name and reason for being banned constitutes excessive data collection. There's no reason to know the person's address. The other ways to maintain privacy protection are having a short data retention policy and not sharing the data wholesale with the police or other authorities. If the US had something like the GDPR, that'd help.
