[HN Gopher] Many Americans not aware of being tracked with facia...
___________________________________________________________________
Many Americans not aware of being tracked with facial recognition
while shopping
Author : thunderbong
Score : 315 points
Date : 2021-08-16 12:54 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techradar.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techradar.com)
| bostonsre wrote:
| Another reason for everyone to where masks while out shopping.
| mgarfias wrote:
| So which retailers are doing this?
| mikem170 wrote:
| From this list [0]: Albertson's, H.E.B., Macy's, and Apple at
| the moment, and there's a whole list of companies that said
| they might use it in the future.
|
| EDIT: elsewhere in these comments someone stated that Apple
| does not use facial recognition.
|
| [0] https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/#scorecard
| asciimov wrote:
| I don't believe that Walmart isn't using this data, they have
| way too many cameras in there stores not to be using it.
|
| Not that it really matters anyway. If you use credit cards,
| they already know more about you and your buying habits than
| you could imagine.
| reedjosh wrote:
| This to me is part of a general trend wherein only those with the
| awareness and resources required will have privacy.
|
| For example, if you do have the funds, send a private shopper.
| But an even more direct example is skipping the discounts
| associated with club cards for privacy reasons.
|
| This will further entrench the class divide between the wealthy
| and the rest of us.
| oramit wrote:
| Why should I care to keep what I buy at the grocery store
| private?
|
| I'm not trying to be flippant with this question. I'm just
| honestly perplexed why this is an important dateset to keep
| private.
|
| Also, why would I want to avoid discounts? Grocery stores are
| one of the few places that gives me money for handing them my
| data. Isn't this good behavior!?
| 6510 wrote:
| People will judge you using anything they can get their hands
| on. Looking at your nutritional choices I might think you are
| not investment material, worth hiring, worth giving a lone
| to. But then I can also use it to judge your friends,
| relatives and your great great great grandchildren.
|
| You might have friends over every weekend but those 4 crates
| of beer also put you on the alcoholics list. +1 alcoholics
| for your contact list. And you purchased helium for that kids
| party. A pack of smokes for the gardener per week. You look
| 62% like a person on the crack cocaine list and 59% like a
| regular weed customer. Those are over 50% are they not? Seems
| good enough to use.
|
| Eventually you get to the "people who are not racists but are
| unsure if their clients are - so you are not hired" kind of
| situation. How many alcoholics who suck helium, do crack and
| smoke pot can you "seriously" have in your network?
|
| These are most likely stupid examples but that makes them
| good. We have no idea how the data will be used when combined
| with other data. Someone will think of something way more
| stupid.
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| In many ways it's a prisoners dilemma problem. We can
| contrive many particular cases where your individual data
| might put you at risk, but the fundamental problem is that
| broadly having access to many people's data allows the people
| who hold that data to do analysis on it and to have enormous
| levels of control over the population because they can
| carefully tune their actions and messaging based on that
| data.
|
| Ultimately your individual data is far less important than
| the aggregate data for making these decisions- and you are
| impacted regardless of whether your personal data is
| available or not.
|
| The question is whether or not we could get people to
| collectively act in their own self interest and push back
| against data collection. Based on what we've seen over the
| last 2 years with the pandemic I have absolutely no hope for
| humanity ever being able to collectively act in its self
| interest and the road to hell will be paved with people
| asking "how does it hurt me, personally, right now".
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I want full control of data being collected on me, period. I
| don't care if someone patronizingly thinks it will "help" me.
| That is not their decision, it is mine.
|
| If someone's making money off my back they better give me a
| cut, and a big one. 50c off a bag of grapes doesn't cut it.
| nonfamous wrote:
| What you buy at a grocery store can reveal a lot about you:
|
| - Personal care products: gender
|
| - Medications: age/health of you and family members
|
| - Magazines/media: political affiliation, social class
|
| The list goes on.
|
| [Edit: formatting]
| psychomugs wrote:
| This always reminds me of the anecdote of Target predicting
| pregnant customers and "outing" them before they or their
| family knows [1].
|
| Really makes one consider using cash.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-
| habits....
| slg wrote:
| >before they or their family knows
|
| To be clear, it is before their family knows and not
| before they know. It is extremely difficult to figure out
| someone is pregnant before they know. It doesn't take any
| complex analysis to see someone purchasing prenatal
| vitamins and conclude they are pregnant.
| oramit wrote:
| Yes, you can infer a lot based on grocery store purchases.
| I don't deny it - but why does it matter?
|
| What bad things have happened to the average person based
| on grocery store purchase history?
|
| Again, i'm not trying to be flippant with my questions I'm
| honestly just frustrated after decades of following privacy
| discussions that there isn't a clear answer to this
| question.
| akomtu wrote:
| For example, a person with diabetes or other serious
| condition gets denied a good job because the company run
| a background check and saw such and such purchases.
| Medical data is protected for this reason (HIPAA, etc.)
| but all other data isn't.
| boatsie wrote:
| I wonder this too, but perhaps your insurance company
| buys this data on you and says, oh, they drink sugary
| drinks and eat candy and chips. They are buying Tylenol
| and ibuprofen for chronic pain. Maybe they will get
| diabetes and we should raise their premiums accordingly.
| oramit wrote:
| I don't mean to rag on you in particular. The answers I
| get around privacy problems are always conjecture.
| "Perhaps" the insurance company will do x, "Maybe" they
| will do y.
|
| It's always some scary threat that could happen in the
| future. The problem is though that the powers that be
| (government/corporate) already have more private
| information than ever before and yet: nothing has
| happened.
|
| At what point do these warnings just become crying wolf?
| kube-system wrote:
| The data is already being used in various ways that
| people would object to, it's just that nobody who is
| using data in objectionable ways is announcing it from
| their rooftops, because they know it's objectionable and
| want to keep doing it.
| slg wrote:
| I guess this is an answer to the question but it doesn't
| answer the motivation behind the question. Why should we
| care about these things being public? You can tell my
| gender and rough age by looking at me for a second. If you
| want to keep those private your grocery store is the least
| of your concerns.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Purchasing history is some of the most personal and sensitive
| data there is about you. It can reveal nearly everything.
|
| But, ignoring that, there's a very good reason why you might
| want to keep as much data out of the machine as possible --
| even data that, on its own, is of no importance. That reason
| is databases. The data you provide to any business will be
| combined with the data you've provided everywhere else. All
| of those items that on their own are of no importance become
| incredibly intrusive and privacy-destroying when combined
| with each other.
| oramit wrote:
| Yes, all these disparate databases can be merged together
| and you can get a pretty darn accurate picture of me.
|
| But so what, what is the end game here?
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| Others have mentioned specific reasons, but another aspect to
| consider is that once you've given up any kind of data, it's
| out of your hands. Maybe you can't think of a reason why
| that's bad today, but will that be true tomorrow, or next
| year?
|
| By making the decision that it's fine today, you're also
| deciding that it's always going to be fine in the future.
| oramit wrote:
| This doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. If i'm
| understanding correctly: I shouldn't share that I do X
| because in the future X might come under scrutiny.
|
| This sort of argument can be deployed to stop you from
| doing anything. It's also very apocalyptic because you are
| only assuming downsides. What happens if sharing X actually
| helps me in the future?
| fuihggyfdd wrote:
| I don't see the inherent dilemma without establishing the
| impact towards quality of life. The price of yachts also
| entrenches this same divide but I hardly care since my access
| to yahts isn't a big concern. In the same manner, the only
| people whose QoL suffers from this sort of disparity seems to
| be activists and the people who buy into their fearmongering.
| Where's the real damage?
| beambot wrote:
| Unless your private shopper is paying cash, your privacy is
| probably still illusive.
| reedjosh wrote:
| You'll get no argument from me. :)
| metters wrote:
| I believe even with resources it won't be possible to evade
| that. Gait recognition can even recognize a person that
| pretends to walk like a different person or being hurt - at
| least that is what I heard last time about this technology.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| This may actually close the class divide a little.
|
| The thing with privacy is the more wealthy you are, the more
| valuable it is. For example, if I want to sell something, I
| will want to target the wealthiest first. Same thing for
| scammers, and newspapers will follow celebrities. Who care
| about the poor, there is no money to extract from them.
|
| So let's get back to the private shopper. A rich and famous man
| will want to hire a private shopper, because he knows that if
| he is found in a shop, he will be bothered by people who are
| after his money and fame. His privacy is worth a lot, to him
| and to others.
|
| The private shopper is likely to be of a more modest status, he
| can go shopping without being bothered, he may be tracked by
| robots and end up with personalized ads, be part of some
| statistics, whatever, but no one will stop him for an autograph
| or some special favor.
|
| So when the rich man pays the private shopper, with a little
| extra for his discretion, that's resources that go from the
| wealthy to the "rest of us".
|
| The same can be said for loyalty cards. The one who can afford
| not to use loyalty card will earn the shop more profit (because
| no discount), meaning that it can offer bigger discounts to
| others.
|
| It is as if a unit of privacy is proportional to your wealth.
| The amount of privacy a rich man will get by paying $1000, a
| poor man can get it for $1. In the same way that it is much
| cheaper to secure a penny than a gold bar, because no one will
| want to steal your penny.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > The one who can afford not to use loyalty card will earn
| the shop more profit (because no discount), meaning that it
| can offer bigger discounts to others.
|
| I don't use loyalty cards, but I don't pay more because of
| it. There still exist stores that don't have them, and my
| observation is that the regular prices on those stores are
| about the same as the "loyalty card discount" price at other
| stores.
|
| The "discount" you're getting with a loyalty card is a sham.
| The regular prices were just bumped up to give the illusion
| of a discount.
|
| More to the point, though, the issue I see with your analysis
| is that you're assuming that privacy has a single value. My
| privacy is worth just as much to me as a wealthy person's
| privacy is to them. That others value them differently is
| unimportant. The cost of the loss of that privacy is the same
| regardless of income, but only the wealthy have a way to
| minimize that loss without going to extreme measures.
| swiley wrote:
| Many of the stores I've been to give the cashiers a "store"
| card that they just swipe if you don't have one (even if
| you've never signed up.) It probably violates some
| corporate policy but they seem to get away with it.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| > Who care about the poor, there is no money to extract from
| them.
|
| There is plenty, just ask all the MLM companies, dollar
| stores, and payday lenders
| [deleted]
| unstatedAnswers wrote:
| Then your private shopper gets tracked. It's just a pointer to
| your actual self, like how a "ghost account" gets created on
| Facebook or Google, when you browse in incognito
| cronix wrote:
| > But an even more direct example is skipping the discounts
| associated with club cards for privacy reasons.
|
| Right, but most still pay with a credit/debit card when
| checking out which gives the cc/bank the same info. At least
| with a store club card they only know what you purchase in that
| store/chain, instead of every store.
| reedjosh wrote:
| > Right, but most still pay with a credit/debit card when
| checking out which gives the cc/bank the same info.
|
| Yes, which is why I think cash is crucial until/if we get a
| digital equivalent.
|
| > At least with a store club card they only know what you
| purchase in that store/chain, instead of every store
|
| I haven't done research to confirm, but I'm guessing club
| card data ends up in the hands of data brokers at some point.
| Of course this probably varies by chain.
| kyleee wrote:
| There will never be a state sanctioned privacy enabling
| digital cash equivalent since the data surrounding
| transactions is far too valuable (both in a monetary sense
| and in a social control sense).
|
| I'm sure the phrase "digital cash" will be used in the
| marketing lingo though
| reedjosh wrote:
| I agree. I like Monero, but it will never be state
| sanctioned. I don't much care for the state.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I bet if I asked the people I know (many who earn enough to
| not need the discounts) if they would rather spend 1% less on
| their groceries and let go of their grocery purchase data, or
| if they would spend 1% more and keep their purchase history
| private, almost everyone would choose to voluntarily give it
| up and spend 1% less.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm guessing this is why many grocery stores don't allow NFC
| payments, except for (in my area at least) Safeway, whose
| non-club pricing is so punitive that most people just knuckle
| under and get the card.
|
| Though I just use 867-5309 anyway. Works in every area code,
| AFAICT.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| "Forgot card" often works too!
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's good to know. Another trick I used to use was just
| to tell the cashier that I forgot my card, and she'd grab
| a spare and swipe it. Then they started doing phone
| numbers, so that probably doesn't work as well now.
| dabbledash wrote:
| $local_area_code-867-5309 is almost always registered. No
| reason to sign up for your own card.
| mellavora wrote:
| Jenny, is that you?
| kube-system wrote:
| I was at a self-checkout recently that _required_ a store
| rewards membership to checkout at. I tried 867-5309 but
| form validation required both a phone number and a _last_
| name.
|
| I guess retailers are catching on.
| kevinmgranger wrote:
| How do NFC payments relate to it?
| munificent wrote:
| The industrial revolution divided the world into those who had
| capital (owned factories, tools, land, etc.) and those who
| produced labor (worked in the factories, used the tools, worked
| the land, etc.). Those on the side of labor couldn't provide
| value without access to capital where it could be used.
| Conversely, those with capital need labor to extract value from
| it. The factories don't run themselves.
|
| In theory, this would balance out and lead towards some level
| of equality. In practice, the high barrier of entrance and
| smaller numbers on the side of capital made it much easier for
| them to drive down labor prices and exploit. That led to
| massive inequality--think robber barons and the like--which in
| turn eventually led to the organized labor movement.
|
| We are now recapitulating this historic arc in the information
| revolution. Now the world is divided into those who own data
| and those who produce it. Large corporations own giant fields
| of data and the computing technology required to derive
| actionable information from it. Everyone else gives up their
| personal data and attention to feed those enormous machines.
| This has led to the growing inequality that is causing a
| breakdown in institutional trust and is driving people out of
| cities that are increasingly affordable only to the elites who
| run the data factories.
|
| At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data
| movement" where people work together to be able to make
| effective demands about how their data can be harvested and
| used. We aren't there yet.
| momirlan wrote:
| The division happened when transitioning from hunter
| gatherers (which didn't need possessions, just hard work) to
| agriculture, where land became a prized possession.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Different ages, different divisions, different criterion.
|
| 1500 years ago those who could hoard land and power and
| influence after the fall of the Western Roman Empire went
| into decline formed the kernel the feudal aristocracy. But
| those who were able to capitalize on the merchant and
| industrial revolutions starting 500 years ago, and the rise
| of global capitalism, became the kernel of the bourgeoisie
| in the modern era.
|
| We'll see what happens next.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > The division happened when transitioning from hunter
| gatherers (which didn't need possessions, just hard work)
|
| I am sure hunter gatherer societies were also very
| territorial. If the area you are hunting or gathering does
| doesn't have much animals or plants, all the hard work
| won't get you nearly as much food as someone who has a lot
| of plants and animals on their land.
|
| And if you don't think early humans were territorial just
| take a look at chimpanzees or even lions. Being tribal and
| territorial goes back a long ways.
| iso1210 wrote:
| > At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data
| movement" where people work together to be able to make
| effective demands about how their data can be harvested and
| used. We aren't there yet.
|
| The GDPR comes along, and HN hated it
| the_other wrote:
| That's not surprising. Some of us here are part of the
| problem.
| 6510 wrote:
| That was just because they didn't read it.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| > The industrial revolution divided the world into those who
| had capital (owned factories, tools, land, etc.) and those
| who produced labor (worked in the factories, used the tools,
| worked the land, etc.).
|
| Don't be silly. The world was divided long before the
| Industrial Revolution, and if "labor" was ever on top of
| things, it was for fleeting moments. What changed with the
| Industrial Revolution was the collection of economic power in
| the hands of a mere titan of industry -- instead of some
| baron, or prince, or caesar, or warlord, or chieftan, or
| other political personage.
| munificent wrote:
| For what it's worth, I didn't say the world was not divided
| before the industrial revolution. I just said what lines it
| became divided along after it.
|
| Before, because of the agricultural revolution, it was
| divided primarily along lines of land ownership and the
| familiar inheritance of that.
| [deleted]
| asdff wrote:
| Oligarchy is as old as civilization. A roman senator was
| just as beholden to a major olive oil producer 2000 years
| ago as an American senator to a major oil producer today.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Very true. We are witnessing how a new aristocracy is being
| built. This time it's not based on skills in warfare but
| around business skills. But the result is the same: you
| have a small group who thinks they are better than others
| and deserve to receive the vast majority of the profits
| society creates. And they manipulate the game to their
| advantage.
|
| This seems to happen in all societies until a revolution
| happens and the cycle starts anew just with different
| actors.
| 6510 wrote:
| We are going though iterations of
| societies/empires/cultures. Each round has the same
| issues but we get to learn from- and bring solutions from
| the previous one. The collective is much stronger than
| influential individuals but there has to be a collective
| will to change the game. It seems to me that we are more
| humanitarian than many previous cycles but I'm afraid we
| wont show much of an interest in [epic] game design until
| things get truly terrible. (Cheran pops to mind: That
| Mexican town of 16k that got rid of police, politicians
| and mobsters)
|
| This time we did get game design down to an art with fine
| mechanics and cheap execution. Perhaps someone with a
| sharp pen can draw the parallels for us. Surely (if the
| will is there) it is easy to design something better than
| the stupid formula where we pretend Personal gain =
| Collective gain.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "until things get truly terrible. "
|
| That's the sad part. Big change seems to require a big
| disruptive event like war or revolution.
|
| But i agree that things seem to get better overall.
| Unfortunately there are plenty of downs in between and
| these can last many years.
| cwkoss wrote:
| All the more reason to continue wearing masks when shopping!
| jacquesm wrote:
| And: if you have a smartphone in your pocket there will be
| attempts to couple your smartphone device ID to your mugshots
| from various angles.
| gruez wrote:
| Isn't that a non-issue since a few years ago, because
| google/apple put in mac randomization?
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's very well possible but there are numerous workaround
| for that that would still allow you to uniquely identify a
| phone. Regardless: the push to identify people out and about,
| the push to tie those identities to online behavior is real
| and relentless, and relatively little is done to curb this.
| Personally I think all of these transaction should be done
| only with consenting adults or by - presumably properly
| overseen - law enforcement acting after they obtained a
| warrant.
| seriousquestion wrote:
| How does that work? How do they get the ID? And is it location
| accurate enough that it would not get confused with another
| phone a few feet away?
| mikem170 wrote:
| Wifi and/or bluetooth media addresses, which are unique. I've
| heard that wifi tracks you to the store, bluetooth to the
| aisle in the store. A lot of people have all this enabled on
| their phones, right? Then there's the apps installed on so
| many phones that are built using facebook sdk's and similar
| that include a lot of spyware.
|
| I have the impression that stores doing this are working with
| data aggregator to associate this information with other
| sources of info, like credit card purchases, facial
| recognition, phone number and imei, etc.
| throwdecro wrote:
| If they do this to a person from an EU country, won't that
| person have a potent issue to raise via GDPR?
| inetknght wrote:
| Good luck proving it happened.
| 9dev wrote:
| Good luck keeping a blowjob in the Oval Office a secret.
| There's far too many people involved in such an operation
| to keep a blatant criminal offence secret for a prolonged
| amount of time. Tracking like this is, for now at least,
| not possible in the EU.
|
| Oh boy, will this comment age badly.
| notdang wrote:
| Android and iOS are randomizing the mac addresses.
| duderific wrote:
| > I've heard that wifi tracks you to the store, bluetooth
| to the aisle in the store.
|
| I interviewed a guy who worked on this very technology.
| It's used in retail stores to track foot traffic and how
| people move around the shopping area.
| splatcollision wrote:
| Let's leverage the current mask trend, and make masks that are
| low-rez displays, and project a loop of shifting blurry different
| generated facial features, like the scramble suits in scanner
| darkly :)
| [deleted]
| advshirt wrote:
| With a bit of cleverness, even need masks or e ink displays. A
| normal t shirt with a special pattern is enough:
| https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/29/researchers-fool-person-d...
|
| Paper:
| https://mitibmwatsonailab.mit.edu/research/blog/adversarial-...
| aaron695 wrote:
| Like the photo of LCD screens replacing supermarket fridge doors
| and Hacker News comments about how _clever_ they where to know
| about glass, and missed the cameras that came with every door,
| exactly as the company intended.
|
| That sort of thing?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| 40% isn't really "almost half," unless you squint and turn your
| head sideways.
|
| I'm a little suspicious of surveys that have only two choices
| that add up to 100%.
|
| That said, I'm not happy with the way that facial recognition is
| being deployed, and a lot of HN readers are the ones that are
| crafting the tools.
|
| When a blacksmith makes a sword, they know what it's for. Things
| get fuzzier, after that.
|
| I watched a (terrible) movie, a while ago, called _Monsters of
| Man_ , and it featured this team of geeks that developed AI-
| powered killbots, and were forced to get "up close and personal"
| with their work.
|
| Needless to say, things didn't end well for them.
| oramit wrote:
| I'm honestly perplexed by the discussion here. Why should I care
| that a grocery store is using this? They already have camera
| systems - what is it about feeding that data into a facial
| recognition algorithm that is so awful?
|
| They want to identify who their customers are and already do a
| good job of it with loyalty cards. I often have to show my ID
| when I buy beer. I'm in a public place where I have no
| expectation of privacy. I run into my neighbors in the grocery
| store and say Hi.
|
| What exactly should I be trying to hide here?
| titzer wrote:
| 2025: Why should I care if a grocery has my DNA and
| fingerprints? They already have facial recognition and a record
| of everything I ever bought, it's not like they are sharing it
| with anyone.
|
| Also 2025: Why should I care if my gym has facial recognition
| technology?
|
| 2026: Why should I care if a grocery shares my DNA and entire
| purchase history with my insurance provider? It's not like I'm
| obese. I go to the gym.
|
| 2027: Why should I care that my insurance provider has DNA
| sequencing technology, my entire purchase history from every
| grocery store ever, my gym history, my driving history, my
| family history, a record of my health and fitness habits? I'm
| healthy.
|
| 2030: I suddenly have $500,000 in health bills because my
| health insurance provider dropped me 1 week before I had a
| sudden heart attack and presented 400 pages of evidence to the
| judge that it was justified based on the policy violations they
| repeatedly caught me doing. I guess I didn't read the fine
| print! I guess I shouldn't have smoked that one cigarette
| outside the bar when I was drunk that night, or have gotten
| drunk in the first place. And that burger on the fourth of
| July. I agree, in hindsight, that was over the line. All those
| premiums, and they drop me the second I am no longer profitable
| to them! But they're a business, they provide a valuable
| service to people who couldn't otherwise afford healtchare,
| so...
| standardUser wrote:
| All of these concerns can be prevented with effective laws,
| which most people would agree is a better solution that
| boycotting the world or wearing elaborate disguises in public
| (as has been suggested in many other comments here).
| oramit wrote:
| If i'm reading this right, i see two arguments here.
|
| The first is a slippery slope. They are starting to use
| facial recognition now and will soon be asking for my DNA and
| fingerprints. I just don't agree that the slope is slippery.
| Why would my grocery store care to collect that information?
| We're talking about grocery store items - the company just
| wants to know what i'm buying so they can send me ads to buy
| more stuff. They have no interest in my fingerprints or DNA.
| This honestly just comes off as paranoid and conspiratorial.
|
| The second argument is more interesting. You fear that
| different databases (grocery, driving, fitness, etc) will be
| joined together and deployed against us. I don't think this
| is an unreasonable fear at all. However, I totally disagree
| that fighting this on the collection side will be fruitful.
| The unfortunate conclusion i've come to here is that there is
| no individual action I can take to stop the collection and
| collation of all this data. I can limit how much information
| I share - which I do when necessary - but again, what i'm
| buying at the grocery store is not the privacy hill worth
| dying on.
|
| Instead the better way to fight this is with laws. The
| specific example you brought up is Health insurance
| discrimination but the problem with your example is that
| large parts of it are already banned by law: https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
|
| The Affordable Care Act added even more limits to what
| insurers can do to decide on rates.
| titzer wrote:
| > The first is a slippery slope.
|
| Actually I mean something closer to shifting baseline [1]
| in a broader sense. We've just come to accept a vast loss
| of privacy as surveillance and data gathering has become so
| cheap, so pervasive, and insidiously hidden, that at this
| point it is impossible to stop it. The inertia is all
| rolling downhill at this point. The slippery slope has
| slipped and slid already, well past what we would have
| considered acceptable a generation ago. It was unthinkable
| when I was a kid in the 1980s or a teenager in the 1990s
| that they would do so much tracking, in meatspace and
| cyberspace.
|
| And you're right that there is no way to stop it, except
| through laws. The US government is completely asleep at the
| wheel. Worse, they've been paid off to be asleep at the
| wheel.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_baseline
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi.
|
| There is a considerable difference between low data density,
| person to person, information... and high density, machine
| gathered, massive data stores. The later is much easier and
| more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.
| oramit wrote:
| I understand that but stores have been storing this sort of
| customer data for decades now and what nefarious things have
| come of it?
|
| Nobody cares that I bought milk and eggs last week, they
| won't care two decades from now.
| tiagod wrote:
| I find it absurd. But I live in a county where CCTV can only be
| used for loss-prevention.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| Society is by its nature in part adversarial. If one group gets
| a new powerful tool at their disposal, it may change the
| current balance of power in their advantage. Just see how it
| works in an opposite case - crypto - where the common folks may
| increase, through innovative technology, their freedom from
| being herded by governments. The governments are extremely
| concerned about it, even though cryptocurrencies are perfectly
| legal and theoretically don't change much (it's just another
| means of transacting and storing value).
| eat_veggies wrote:
| You don't think there is a qualitative difference between your
| security footage getting recorded -- maybe watched by a
| security guard half-paying attention -- and then written over,
| versus having it analyzed, tracked, and stored for an
| unknowable amount of time?
|
| Or a difference between having the option of presenting your
| loyalty card, versus having your _face_ implicitly being your
| loyalty card, with no way of knowing, and no way to opt out?
|
| Or a cashier glancing at your ID to check that it's legit and
| promptly forgetting about it, versus having it scanned and tied
| to the transaction, and combined with your other behavioral
| data?
|
| When you see a camera on the street corner, is that the same to
| you as greeting your neighbor?
| oramit wrote:
| There is a difference, yes. Most security footage is never
| viewed. It's simply recorded and then reviewed later if there
| is an issue.
|
| What facial recognition adds is that it identifies my
| presence there automatically but again - this is a grocery
| store we're talking about. It's a public place and I have no
| expectation of privacy.
|
| They can identify that I entered the store, what aisles I
| went down, then at checkout can see what I bought. And why do
| I care?
|
| I'm really not being edgy or flippant with that question.
| What is the concern here?
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Seems weird this wouldn't really be discussed, but this also
| means that aggressively publicizing this simple fact, and
| lobbying for very obvious consent & information obligations,
| might be enough to reign in these practices.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Wait till it can ID shoplifting, and people get added to a shared
| database of blacklisted shoppers.
|
| You can steal no problem, but one day you'll be approached and
| asked to leave upon entering almost anywhere.
| mikem170 wrote:
| Even worse, wait until you somehow acidently find yourself on
| the shoplifter list. Who are they going to believe, the all
| knowing facial recognition algorithm, or the lying thief it
| just identified? What company is going to budget the time and
| manpower to bother checking?
| chubot wrote:
| Meh I think it's going to be acceptable to wear a mask for at
| least 5 years, and perhaps indefinitely, which easily defeats
| facial recognition.
| mikem170 wrote:
| They can already identify people wearing masks [0]:
|
| > a normal face mask doesn't help you 'evade' facial
| recognition
|
| [0] https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/4511/can-
| covi...
| logifail wrote:
| > They can already identify people wearing masks
|
| There were stories in Germany reporting that if you wore a
| face mask when driving, you must not also be wearing
| sunglasses and/or a hat ... because the driver's face must
| be recognisable if you're caught by a speed camera.
| chubot wrote:
| Hm interesting, so I guess like all things in
| security/privacy it boils down to an economic war :-/ How
| much effort are you willing to put into masks vs. how much
| effort an adversary is willing to spend to defeat it.
|
| It says that there is no single face mask that can defeat
| every system. That's an interesting point, but what about
| the converse? There's probably no single recognition system
| that can defeat every mask.
|
| edit: I also think it's not that unacceptable to wear a
| mask and sunglasses anymore either, though I've never
| tried. Maybe you have an eye issue and don't want to get
| COVID :)
| JohnFen wrote:
| A fair number of systems are still foiled by masks, as long
| as the mask covers the entire lower face and is black.
| standardUser wrote:
| If we think the solution to these problems is to wear
| disguises, we've already lost.
| mortehu wrote:
| Buildings in New York have already switched the cameras they
| use to take visitor pass photos with ones that see through
| the mask, so you don't have to take off your mask anymore.
| opportune wrote:
| This is only bad if there is no way to appeal such a decision.
| If implemented well this is probably a good thing. Shoplifting
| raises prices/reduces availability for shoppers who don't
| shoplift (yes, it lowers profit too. It does both).
| JohnFen wrote:
| > This is only bad if there is no way to appeal such a
| decision.
|
| This is only true if being falsely accused didn't cost you
| anything (in terms of time, money, etc.), and if the cost of
| appealling is zero.
| ccheney wrote:
| How about dynamically changing prices as you move around the
| store based on the data they have about your person (income,
| etc) (some stores have been implementing digital price tags)
| tubbs wrote:
| This will surely help reintegrate former criminals into
| society.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Given the numerous videos of shoplifters just walking into SF
| stores and stealing in plain view while being recorded, I doubt
| this will stop any of them. Unless there is some change to the
| system of policies that cause stores to do effectively nothing
| about shoplifting, it's not going to stop.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This is already a reality:
|
| https://recfaces.com/articles/how-to-catch-shoplifter
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22576236/retail-stores-fa...
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/with-facial-...
| MichaelGroves wrote:
| When store employees are told not to physically detain any
| shoplifter, it hardly matters at all if they tell a serial
| shoplifter to leave the store. The shoplifter will walk around
| the confronting employee, grab whatever they like off the
| shelves, and walk out without paying for it. (I've seen this
| happen numerous times at 7-11, where the facial recognition is
| being run by store employees using their eyeballs/brains.)
|
| The real victims of this will be the false positives. People
| who follow the rules, but get incorrectly classified as
| shoplifters. They will be the ones who are actually turned away
| at the door.
| derefr wrote:
| Humans won't detain anyone, but probably in the future there
| will be mechanistic countermeasures -- e.g. the doors of the
| store just not opening for shoplifters (or at all, while
| shoplifters continue to be present -- to prevent shoplifters
| from sneaking in ahead/behind a non-blacklisted customer.)
|
| Unmanned stores in the Amazon Go mould are already switching
| from turnstiles to airlock-style entryways; these can easily
| recognize and deny shoplifters access. (Never mind that these
| stores also usually have some form of _positive_
| identification, e.g. a card tap or hand-print scan being
| required to enter; so it'd really just be a matter of
| blacklisting the account associated with your credential.)
|
| There's no reason that manned stores couldn't adopt these
| more-strict entry access systems as well; manned stores just
| haven't invested in such technology yet, because they don't
| _need_ it in the way unmanned stores do (where an unmanned
| store without an entry-access system could literally
| experience 100% "shrinkage", if someone decided to back a
| truck up and start loading.)
|
| Alternately, the facial recognition could just trigger a
| phonecall; which, combined with a simple policy that any car
| belonging to a shoplifter has no right to park in the lot,
| would mean that such cars would have a tow called on them the
| second the shoplifter gets out of their car and walks into
| view of a camera. This wouldn't work in most of the world,
| but in the car-centered US, I could see it being a very
| effective deterrent.
| pessimizer wrote:
| People might realize that comparing these systems to a
| prison isn't hyperbole when the doors won't open.
| derefr wrote:
| They don't lock you in. The point of an entry-access
| system is to gate _entry_ , not _exit_.
|
| To get in, you need to register a credit card. The store
| observes what you take, and charges that credit card for
| those items when you leave. If you're inside, you've
| necessarily given them everything they need to charge you
| asynchronously for everything you take while you're
| there. You can leave at any time.
|
| The point of entry-access is to prevent people who _don
| 't_ have a registered active credit card from coming into
| the store, and so walking away with things _that the
| store cannot then charge to anyone 's account_.
| MichaelGroves wrote:
| I recently saw a viral video of a seagull shoplifting a bag
| of chips. The automatic doors didn't open for the seagull,
| so the bird just waited until a permitted human approached
| the door.
|
| A "mantrap" entrance
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantrap_(access_control) )
| could solve this, but I think many stores don't have the
| space for it. That 7-11 doesn't. Also, neither the cops nor
| the towing company will show up in time to do anything
| about it.
| derefr wrote:
| Thank you; a mantrap was exactly what I was trying to
| describe in my other comments, but didn't know the word
| for it.
|
| It's not true that a 7-11 doesn't have room for a
| mantrap; remember that an unmanned store doesn't have a
| cash register / checkout counter, or any space behind
| such for a person to stand. A manned store could be
| retrofitted into a secure unmanned store by installing
| the mantrap entrance into exactly that area.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > the doors of the store just not opening for shoplifters
| (or at all, while shoplifters continue to be present -- to
| prevent shoplifters from sneaking in ahead/behind a non-
| blacklisted customer.)
|
| This is illegal in my state. And, I'm guessing, in most
| other US states as well.
| derefr wrote:
| Do you mean that denying _entry_ is illegal, or denying
| _exit_ is?
|
| Because these unmanned stores do let you _leave_ ; they
| just have separate entry and exit doors, which have
| mutual-exclusion locking (like an airlock) such that
| nobody can enter the store through the exit door by
| getting someone inside the store to open the inner door.
| (You could slip into the little individual exit hall
| through the outer exit door; but the inner door _in_ the
| little exit hall would remain locked until you left and
| it detected there were no longer people in the hall.
| Presuming a high-traffic store, this also wouldn 't hold
| anything up, as other customers would continue to exit
| through the bank of other exit halls to either side of
| you.)
|
| I haven't checked, but presumably pulling a fire alarm
| inside the store would disable all this security,
| flinging both the entry and exit doors open. But you
| can't reach the fire alarm in the exit hall; it's not
| "inside" the store. The only thing you can do in the exit
| hall, is exit (which you are always free to do.)
| swiley wrote:
| At some point (at least on the east cost) you end up with
| legit armed private (or public, I can't tell honestly)
| security at the front.
| meowster wrote:
| I would love for there to be a legal requirement/warning posted
| on shop entrances saying "This facility uses CCTV/Facial
| Tracking/Phone Tracking/etc"
| modzu wrote:
| that sign would be right outside your front door.
| gnabgib wrote:
| There are requirements for the CCTV notices already.. you
| probably haven't noticed, because they're tiny and out of the
| way. Plus a lot of establishments use non-committal language
| like "may be recorded by CCTV" (almost as if every retailer
| added the signs but only some of them added the tech).
|
| It would be great if this was posted, boldly, clearly. As long
| as there are data protection limits (only 3 month's history can
| be maintained, data is unrecoverably disposed of) and
| accommodations for those who do not consent. (If every grocery
| store adopts the tech, how will you buy groceries if you do not
| accept these practices?)
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| What I actually found most surprising in this article was that a
| plurality don't seem to mind:
|
| > When it came to whether or not respondents supported the use of
| facial recognition by retailers, 42 percent said they didn't mind
| it while 38 percent said they were against its use in stores.
|
| (I assume the remaining 20% were "unsure" or similar? The article
| doesn't say.)
|
| Not sure what to make of this...
| agumonkey wrote:
| What annoys me the most is how sad tech allocation is. Courtrooms
| are moving papers like it's 1869 but walmart needs to invoke
| alien tech to see my emotions when browsing deals.
| beervirus wrote:
| It's horrible. But what is there to do about it?
| asciimov wrote:
| Don't worry about it if you use credit cards, they already know
| a ton about you.
| beervirus wrote:
| Sad but true. I'm guessing Apple Pay is slightly better, but
| I haven't actually looked into it.
| standardUser wrote:
| Support politicians who are in favor of laws regulating these
| kinds of activities. Or become one yourself.
| alex_anglin wrote:
| Wear a mask?
| beervirus wrote:
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/12/tech/face-recognition-
| masks/i...
| scrps wrote:
| This may be a stupid idea and it is outside my expertise (IANAL):
| Would legally classifying identity information as intellectual
| property help? I don't know the case law around identity as
| private property but I would imagine requiring someone to enter
| into a legally binding contract just to enter a store would kill
| efforts like these pretty fast.
| JohnFen wrote:
| If the scheme relies on copyright or trademark for
| effectiveness, then it wouldn't help. Not sure about other
| forms of IP law.
| dhosek wrote:
| 60% seems high to me. This was the first that I've heard of it
| being used. I'm not surprised to learn of it, but I hadn't really
| thought about it before seeing the headline.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Whoever builds a wearable "sparkler" that is able to disrupt
| digital cameras or the underlying tech in a way that doesn't
| require the user to wear a large scarf or similar is going to
| really usher in an interesting part of history.
| barnesto wrote:
| You mean like this?
|
| https://www.reflectacles.com/
| mabbo wrote:
| Your face is just one of a myriad of things that can be
| recognized and tracked.
|
| There are so many facets of the human body which can all be
| combined. Can't see your face? Who cares- I can see how far
| apart your eyes are, how tall you are, your shoulder-to-elbow
| length, your walking speed, and your approximate weight. You're
| dogman144, and you spend an average of $26.34 per visit.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Ya tracking its more than just face. Thinking of some
| wearable RF-ish broadcaster, use it disrupt the comp vision
| that is a root for biometrics of various types. I know I'm
| hand waving a lot of stuff technically though.
| gruez wrote:
| AFAIK those only work because cheap cameras lack IR filters,
| for both cost-cutting and night-vision reasons. More advanced
| cameras have IR filters, rendering such devices useless.
| justaman wrote:
| One of the many benefits of facial coverings in 2020 and
| beyond. Its not perfect but its a solution until we get a
| "sparkler".
| MichaelGroves wrote:
| You can obscure your face from many cameras with bright IR
| leds, but then you become "that one guy who's face shows up on
| camera as a bright washed out blur." It's like trying to hide
| an airplane from radars by broadcasting megawatts of broadband
| noise; possible but not particularly useful.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Well, suppose they became aware. Then what?
| blagie wrote:
| Then we can stop going to stores and shop more online, since
| another upside of bricks-and-mortar is gone.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Data tracking and collection has always been a thing for big
| brick and mortar stores, it's just that tracking technology
| has massively progressed in the past decade.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Yeah that's all loyalty cards are about.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Then it's time to build yourself a greenhouse
| minton wrote:
| I think I understand your general point. However, I can't
| help but feel like it's a form of giving up. We should be
| "yelling" loudly to our politicians while boycotting
| retailers that implement this.
| celim307 wrote:
| Hard to say if all the data collection that happens online is
| any better
| emodendroket wrote:
| Isn't that the point? No way out really.
| dopylitty wrote:
| Sure there's a way out. Elect representatives who will
| vote to outlaw the use of facial recognition and other
| tracking technologies.
| emodendroket wrote:
| There are many things I wish they would do and this isn't
| at the top of the list for me.
| mikecoles wrote:
| Shop local, independent stores. Vote with your wallet.
| blagie wrote:
| How do I know local, independent stores aren't using face
| recognition?
|
| I can get a home security face recognition camera for
| $30. This is no longer elite technology.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I'll take my chances with the panopticon.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Or show up in one of those anti face recognition masks
| whenever you go shopping.
| emodendroket wrote:
| You've kind of been handed a readymade excuse to obscure
| half your face at all times. One of the big ironies of the
| 1/6 event that people were so committed to masklessness as
| a political statement that they filmed themselves commiting
| crimes without obscuring their faces.
| arglebarglegar wrote:
| i'd argue you're giving away more online, especially the less
| savvy that aren't blocking trackers - face tracking isn't as
| widely distributed as trackers (yet)
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Normalize masks? Let them figure my face from that!
| fundamental wrote:
| They're trying to recognize your face anyway. e.g. see
| https://pages.nist.gov/frvt/html/frvt_facemask.html It looks
| like the testing is still done in relation to synthetic
| masks, but I could see that shifting over time. Absolutely
| repugnant that the industry is targeting masked individuals,
| but it's happening none the less.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Mask, hoodie and a cooler and I'm sure they can't do crap.
| They can try gait but it's a losing proposition anyway.
| emodendroket wrote:
| The traditional Japanese bank robber getup (I guess
| because these were common items anyway) is surgical mask
| and sunglasses.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I tried telling random adults on the main street in my
| University town that Target was using non-disclosed facial
| recognition, about four years ago, for a while. The rate of
| response was less than half for people to show concern. I also
| somewhat-randomly discovered a local "facial aware" security
| system installer at the coffee shop. Once he noticed I was
| asking pointed questions about consent, he changed his tone and
| said "yeah I install a bunch of high tech shit" and ended the
| conversation. Weeks later I saw him driving by and rode my
| bicycle next to him in traffic making a scene (saying nothing
| that could be construed as a threat). He was a little shaken
| that time I hope.
|
| As a US Citizen I am strongly opposed to non-disclosed facial
| recognition in commercial settings. The covid masking is almost
| like Greek-fable humor of the gods, rendering even ATM (perfect
| picture) facial recognition moot.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| > Weeks later I saw him driving by and rode my bicycle next
| to him in traffic making a scene while saying nothing that
| could be construed as a threat. He was a little shaken that
| time I hope.
|
| You tried to subtly threaten and shake up the owner of a
| local coffee shop, weeks later, as revenge for not
| entertaining your questions about the features of his
| security system?
| gentleman11 wrote:
| Following somebody on the street is less threatening than
| filming them for lifelong worldwide tracking and profiling
| emodendroket wrote:
| If you followed one specific person perhaps, but just
| doing that in your store? Seems like a stretch.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I did no threatening or revenge, and you should definitely
| retract that statement.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| You made a scene, while intentionally avoiding saying
| anything that could be construed as a threat (which is
| generally an attempt at subtle threatening), and you hope
| that you shook him up.
|
| To remove that part: you hope that you shook up a local
| business owner for not entertaining your questions about
| the features of his security system?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Why so much respect for someone just because they're a
| business owner?
|
| Sounds more like someone liked surveillance but got
| shaken up by sousveillance.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| I would mention it if they were his neighbor or a cab
| driver as well.
|
| It's not a matter of respect, but this person simply
| installed a security system for their safety. They're
| obviously not extremely technical. They're just trying to
| go about their day, serve their customers and make a
| living, and go home.
|
| My point in that wording is that it's some random local
| person in the community, not the head of the NSA's PRISM
| program. It's actually crazy to try and shake that person
| up for installing security cameras in their coffee shop
| and not getting everyone who walks in to sign a consent
| form to be recorded.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| ok we have to close this thread but I will say that a)
| you have several assumptions there that I know are not
| this case b) I own my actions and I repeat it here for
| the group c) many systems of law are changed over time;
| the law has not caught up to the tech, and it is up to
| people in daylight to make the world, not backroom deals
| or secret profiles. I will stick with that one - this is
| a Daylight Action if you see what I mean
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > It's not a matter of respect, but this person simply
| installed a security system for their safety.
|
| And OP asked questions about it and got brushed off. At
| least in most of Canada (not even EU), if you're
| collecting personal info, you have to answer to
| how/what/why you collected it and provide notice of that
| too.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Surprising that these tactics did not work.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| >saying nothing that could be construed as a threat.
|
| >He was a little shaken that time _I hope_.
|
| Choose one of these.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| informed consent - pick two
|
| .. expanded the sentence might be "shaken from his onerous
| and insular attitude to one of realization that others are
| not able to agree if they are not informed"
| gumby wrote:
| Then they will reject anti-virus software so we should be fine.
| ajay-b wrote:
| My wife has a conspiracy theory: The reason why mask mandates are
| being extended is so that facial recognition has practice
| recording and analyzing faces that are covered.
| dwighttk wrote:
| Pay us to find out the list of stores to avoid...
| yazan94 wrote:
| This has to be one of the most worthless articles I've ever read.
| The title here is really the TL:DR, the only additional piece of
| info in the article not present in the title is the numbers. The
| source of the data for this article is here:
|
| https://piplsay.com/face-recognition-tech-in-retail-are-amer...
| guffaw5 wrote:
| Agreed. This is a much better article from last month:
| https://www.axios.com/facial-recognition-retail-surge-c13fff...
| sneak wrote:
| Apple stores now use face recognition on their camera feeds, as
| well. I always wear a mask and glasses in them, now, and pay
| cash.
|
| EDIT: according to shuckles below, this is incorrect.
| shuckles wrote:
| As far as I can tell, this is untrue. Apple has denied using it
| [0] and the case is better explained by a thief using a false
| identity alongside bad detective work on the part of police and
| a contracted security company [1].
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/tech/2019/4/23/18512942/apple-
| lawsu... [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/29/apple-
| sued-over-f...
| sneak wrote:
| Ahh, thanks for the clarification!
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| But... Do you use face id to unlock your phone?
| hellisothers wrote:
| I'm with you that it's gross Apple is using this technology,
| OTOH though your hiding your face and paying cash to then take
| what you bought and configure it with a device that identifies
| you to that very business and probably even can track where you
| fought it by ID.
| sneak wrote:
| I use a brand new apple ID (each of which requires a burner
| number to create) for each and every device, and I don't
| attach payment info to the account (free apps only), and I
| don't put SIM cards in them (apple receives the device serial
| and sim card serial when you insert one), I don't use
| iCloud/FaceTime/iMessage, I keep location services off at all
| times, and I only allow them internet access via a VPN-only
| router that filters a lot of traffic.
|
| It's a pain in the ass. I've had every one but this 12 pro is
| very likely my last iPhone.
| vxNsr wrote:
| What's the point of a smart phone if you only have WiFi and
| no gps?
| netr0ute wrote:
| WiFi calling
| hanniabu wrote:
| Linked to your wifi, paid by you
| shuckles wrote:
| WiFi calling doesn't use the device's VPN settings?
|
| Even if it doesn't, the poster said they also use a
| router VPN.
| vxNsr wrote:
| The phone number itself is linked to them in someway.
| Paying for your physical device in cash is meaningless if
| you're gonna connect to internet you own and use credit
| cards, etc to operate it.
| shuckles wrote:
| I think that's definitely true in some countries but not
| all. For example, you can buy burner phone numbers
| (prepaid) in the United States without presenting ID.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Still need to be in WiFi range for that... 90% of
| smartphone things are better on a computer, only
| convenience makes ppl use the smartphone, but a big part
| of that convenience is mobile service and GPS. Take that
| out and you may as well get a dumb phone and use your
| laptop for everything else.
| sneak wrote:
| I have a separate battery powered device that does LTE
| backhaul and VPN and provides wifi, on which I have root
| and iptables/tcpdump.
|
| This way the VPN can't be bypassed on the phone, and I
| can inspect and filter traffic.
|
| Uber can be used by entering an address (eg one a block
| down from my house) with location services off. The only
| things I really miss out on are things that don't work at
| all without location, like the snap map or tinder.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Based on the phone number in your bio you appear to be
| based in chicago, is there a reason you are so worried
| about gov tracking but put your real name and phone
| number in your bio?
|
| This just seems like all incredibly inconvenient as a
| training exercise but I can't think of real reason
| someone on hn would do this only to make it very easy to
| ID them in other ways.
| leesalminen wrote:
| That's likely a burner number. sneak's website states
| that he is out of Berlin. He got ya!
| [deleted]
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Do they do this even in their EU stores?
|
| If so, is there any source showing that? I'm sure some of the
| DPAs would be excited to hear about a company using biometrics,
| likely in violation of Art. 9 GDPR.
| _wldu wrote:
| Walmart makes this rather obvious. I was walking down a medicine
| aisle the other day, and I looked up and saw my face on a screen
| with green lines outlining it.
| daveslash wrote:
| I started to type _" That's not facial recognition"_, then
| deleted it...
|
| The green box that you're describing is _recognizing that _A_
| face is in view of the camera_. This is often used for properly
| adjusting focus, exposure, etc... I suppose you could call it
| "facial recognition", because that's exactly what it's doing.
| But it's fairly benign and passive. This technology exists in
| my DSLR cameras that have no network connection and do not save
| any facial data anywhere in the image.
|
| But then there is facial recognition that knows _who you are_ ,
| it's connected to a network, and it logs where you go - and
| these back-end systems correlate this data with other data
| that's been collected about you. Systems that _know who you
| are_ are what is generally meant when discussing " _facial
| recognition_ ".
|
| This article doesn't say.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Yes. But the only reason they need to identify what is a face
| in the camera is as a step in facial recognition. It's not
| like the security cameras are adjusting their focus or
| exposure.
| kevinsundar wrote:
| Its just security theater as a theft deterrent. The idea is
| that if you see a screen with a green box around your face
| then you believe that they've got a good look at you and if
| you steal then they can use the images.
|
| Walmart isn't investing money building networked cameras
| with the processing ability to perform facial recognition
| at scale in real time. It'd probably cost more money than
| paying employees to just watch people at the store exits.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It's entirely possible that they are only pretending to
| do facial recognition as theft deterrent.
|
| They could also be recording the video and doing the
| facial recognition offline - the analytics aren't
| valuable in realtime.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Last time I was in a Walmart, it felt like they were doing
| everything they could to communicate they didn't want me to
| shop at their store.
|
| * Gates at the main entrances
|
| * Cameras everywhere
|
| * "Security" walking through the store in clearly marked
| uniforms
|
| * Self checkouts with UX that clearly communicates a lack of
| trust.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Apparently they have way too many customers. Business would
| be so great if it weren't for all the darn customers!
| josefresco wrote:
| It depends entirely on the specific Walmart and the
| neighborhood where it's located. I've been traveling the US
| this summer and have stopped at many Walmarts. Some are well
| stocked, beautifully maintained stores that you waltz into
| and out of without a care or delay. Some are run like minimum
| security prisons, with cameras, gates, security and screens
| to show you you're on camera (mostly in the makeup isles).
|
| Some Walmart are well stocked, spacious and clean. Some are
| ravaged, dirty and filled with tourists. It's really amazing
| the variety of quality.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| In my experience, this is not a general Walmart policy, it is
| store-specific. Not too long ago I was looking for a product
| that only Walmart seems to keep in stock, but they don't keep
| much of it. And their online system is not very accurate. So
| in the space of two hours I visited four different Walmarts,
| ranging from one in a nicer area of town, to one in a poor
| area. Security was nonexistent at the first Walmart. The
| store was relaxed, there were plenty of associates, they were
| helpful, etc. The store was actually pretty nice, the only
| thing out of place was the weirdly low prices compared to any
| other store in that area. At the other end of the scale, the
| store in the poor area (which is also majority black, whether
| or not this is actually a factor in their behavior I can only
| speculate) had a half dozen security cars in the parking lot
| with their little flashing yellow lights. Gates at the
| entrance manned with security personnel, uniformed security
| inside the store. And the icing on the cake? They were
| checking 9 out of 10 people's bags on the way out of the
| store, sort of like Costco. Except me. Waived me right on
| through. Because I'm not black? I have no idea. But it sure
| did weird me out.
| quitethelogic wrote:
| I know the bag check isn't the focus here, but I always
| just politely decline. After I've paid, I own whatever is
| in those bags and no, you can't look in them.
| josephcsible wrote:
| You can just decline in stores that anyone is allowed to
| just walk in and shop, but at places that you need a
| membership for, your membership contract usually requires
| that you let them look.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| my friend employs the sunglasses and headphones technique
| where blatantly ignore them. They can't touch you, so
| they just shout a few times, and realize the futility and
| move on to the next shopper.
| acdha wrote:
| The availability of that option depends on your
| appearance: affluent middle-aged white people can usually
| do it but if you're a teenager or match whatever
| demographic is poor in the area, you have to weigh that
| versus escalation possibly including armed police
| response.
| techbio wrote:
| Which escalations the store would have to weigh against a
| loss of business they should expect after racially
| targeting innocent (if so) customers.
|
| Know your rights and exercise them, keep your chin up and
| communicate. Fear is a trigger of suspicion.
| teddyh wrote:
| _When_ has "I'll never shop here again!" _ever_ been a
| useful threat? Shops care about people _in aggregate_ ,
| not you in particular. And anyone they decide to bother
| is someone they already have decided they don't care
| about the opinion of.
| techbio wrote:
| When "I will never" becomes "we demand".
| acdha wrote:
| Especially when it's, say, Walmart which has built a
| business on crowding out competitors in an area -- are
| you really going to spend an extra 40+ minutes driving
| somewhere else out of spite? The power dynamic here seems
| quite unbalanced.
| ggggtez wrote:
| I know a lot of tech people don't go to Walmart, but this
| also matches my experience. More brown neighborhoods have
| more security.
|
| But important note: you can just leave. You don't have to
| let them check your bag. They aren't cops.
| karmakaze wrote:
| All that seems like they don't want you to steal at their
| store by giving deterrent cues. Which parts were practically
| inconvenient, or slow you down?
| SquishyPanda23 wrote:
| Stores used to make customers feel good about shopping
| there. Adding elements that make your store feel more like
| a prison don't help here.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I guess the management at those corporations is so bad
| they do not realize they are driving profits away by
| spending money to make it feel like a prison.
|
| Or management is using tons of experience and data to do
| what they have to do to stay in business in a 2% profit
| margin business, inconveniencing customers if they have
| to in order to prevent losses so they do not have to
| close the store.
| hn8788 wrote:
| I think it's on a store-by-store basis. My grandfather
| works at a Wal-Mart in a small town with a large minority
| population and said they average 10-12K in merchandise
| stolen each month. The store is open 24 hours, but they
| still only have 1 security guard working 9-5 because
| they'd lose more money from lost sales due to minority
| groups typically having bad experiences with authority
| figures and avoiding the store.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| This is easily noticeable if you have experience visiting
| stores in poorer parts of a city and the same brand
| stores in a richer part of the city.
| bluedino wrote:
| $12,000 a month? That's almost nothing for a store like
| Walmart.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| "This decision must be correct because management is
| making it" is a strange idea. Clearly they make mistakes.
| And clearly their data may not be sufficiently deep for
| "the new security measures make people not want to shop
| here so they stay away"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Of course every decision is not correct, but the previous
| responses were written as if the purpose of the decisions
| that management made was to inconvenience or harass
| people, rather than simply an effort to stay in business.
| JohnFen wrote:
| If they have to harass people to stay in business,
| perhaps they shouldn't stay in business.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Whether or not they should stay in business will be
| determined by the success of a competitor offering
| customers something different.
|
| I would not bet on it though.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > the previous responses were written as if the purpose
| of the decisions that management made was to
| inconvenience or harass people
|
| I didn't get that at all. A little bit of trying to
| discourage shoplifters. Maybe you read a different
| thread.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| It's not about inconvenience or efficiency. It's the
| hostile signaling Walmart is communicating to their
| customers.
|
| I go to the Target just down the street, and it's the exact
| opposite experience.
| obmelvin wrote:
| The Target near me has so many camera domes in the
| ceiling that I question if they are all even cameras.
|
| I don't have a huge point to make, other than it isn't
| always as easy as going to another store. To be clear, I
| don't think you are saying that it is.
| asdff wrote:
| It depends on the target. Theft was so bad at one that I
| used to live near, that they installed a police
| substation specifically for the target within the
| building.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Home Depot does this now, and it's starting to alienate
| me. They are conveniently located, but in various places
| in the stores (presumably in the areas where commonly
| shoplifted products are kept), they have cameras with
| screens and as you walk by they ding at you so you'll
| notice they are recording.
|
| I don't like getting treated that way, so I've started
| shopping more often at Lowes, even though it takes a
| couple minutes longer to get there.
| namelessoracle wrote:
| Lowes uses facial recognition tech in their stores. The
| camera is there all the same.
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22576236/retail-
| stores-fa...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That is unfortunate. But I will admit that the
| confrontational method Home Depot uses is more off-
| putting to me than just knowing that there are cameras
| doing facial recognition. I assume HD is also using that
| technology, or will be soon.
| namelessoracle wrote:
| One of the reasons they have the loud ding is to alert an
| associate working several aisles there is a customer
| there so they can go assist them. How that works in
| practice is debatable.
|
| Looks like Home Depot made a commitment to not use facial
| recognition? https://www.zdnet.com/article/backlash-to-
| retail-use-of-faci...
|
| Personally I prefer the "hey we are filming you" notices
| to the silent approach where they use facial recognition
| tech that is feeding into a large database.
|
| Just like i prefer notices in my websites that they are
| data harvesting than the silent approach.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > One of the reasons they have the loud ding is to alert
| an associate working several aisles there is a customer
| there so they can go assist them.
|
| I sincerely hope they don't believe that's what customers
| are experiencing, though. And I've never had an HD
| employee zip on over to help me out when I've been
| browsing electrical parts. I have, however, started being
| a little immature and occasionally flip off the camera
| when it dings at me. Such a rebel I am ;-)
| sodality2 wrote:
| target has far more effective anti-theft, but it's far
| less intrusive, apparently.
| https://www.paypath.com/Small-Business/why-target-is-the-
| wor...
| Talanes wrote:
| That's surprising to hear. All of the San Francisco
| Targets recently started closing at 6pm in response to
| shoplifting.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Is facial recognition less intrusive, or more convenient?
| I'd argue the latter.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I agree. Facial recognition is far more intrusive, and
| far more convenient.
|
| The problem I have with face recognition is what to do
| about it? Some stores are polite enough to make it
| obvious, so I know not to shop there, but I can't trust
| that the other stores aren't also doing it and keeping it
| quiet.
|
| This has me stumped.
| hn8788 wrote:
| It just makes for a shitty experience. I grew up in a blue-
| collar family and still dress that way, even though I'm
| firmly upper-middle class now. I took my wife to a high end
| mall for a her birthday one year, and when we were looking
| at designer purses, the security in the store followed us
| the entire time, presumably because their typical customers
| don't wear jeans, tshirts, and sneakers. We noticed the
| security in all the stores were doing it, and eventually we
| just left without buying anything because we didn't like
| being treated like criminals because of how we dress. Even
| though we could easily afford to buy things there, we
| haven't been back to that mall since.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| They weren't "treating you like criminals" they were just
| bored!
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's not about being slowed down. It's about being treated
| like a criminal. I won't shop at stores that are like this
| simply because I see no reason to put up with being treated
| like that. And, if the store really has such a serious
| crime problem that these measures are necessary, I don't
| want to be there anyway.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > And, if the store really has such a serious crime
| problem that these measures are necessary, I don't want
| to be there anyway.
|
| Neither do the people that shop at them, but they are too
| poor to have a choice. And the store's management also
| does not want to spend money on these anti theft
| measures, but obviously they are having to do so to make
| it viable for the store to stay open.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| They lose a lot to theft in those aisles. I didn't particularly
| mind when I thought it was an anonymous noise maker, but you
| can't trust that anymore.
| tootie wrote:
| I wonder how pervasive this actually is. I've worked a bit in
| retail technology and we put some sensors in live stores.
| Tracking dwell time and pings of wifi access points. They
| generated a ton of noise and almost zero actionable data. Every
| attempt failed to be deployed to a second store. We had some
| success with facial recognition but only in really funneled
| spaces where we could get a customer to look at a camera on
| purpose. And it was still only about 90% accurate.
| hamburgerwah wrote:
| One other thing people may not realize. If you use your credit
| card at a merchant online or in person and you associate any
| information such as a telephone number or email with that card.
| Any time you use that card, online or off, to make a purchase
| with that merchant those transactions can be tied together
| regardless of whether you provide your email/phone on future
| transactions. Large vendors such as walmart etc now associate
| that phone/email and card(s) with your facial recognition
| information. The second you walk into the store based on your
| face they can pull up your entire purchase history and contact.
| They are now crunching that data to improve retail layouts,
| marketing pitches, etc and there is growing market of selling
| aggregates of that data across merchants.
| legerdemain wrote:
| Then why does it take the sales person at Macy's 15 minutes to
| look up my order before giving up and just giving me a refund
| for a poorly fitting sweater I brought back?
| gauravjain13 wrote:
| WAI. They recognized you, and wanted to you spend more time
| in the store. /s
| unstatedAnswers wrote:
| Customer support is a cost center, so it gets less funding
| than sales/marketing-oriented projects
|
| (route-optimizing here likely has the intention of boosting
| sales, not necessarily reducing customer shopping time)
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| For Macy's, the 15 minutes you were forced to spend inside
| the store is a feature, not a bug.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Is it? That's 15 minutes of a customer _not_ spending
| money, and 15 minutes of a staff person dedicated to
| _giving back money_ to a customer, rather than generating
| more revenue.
|
| I get that its considered a feature to get them into a
| store, but surely you don't want to optimise for associates
| not selling things?
| legerdemain wrote:
| That makes sense! It also takes several minutes just to get
| someone's attention at the makeup counter or to find a
| sales person to sell me a bath towel.
| dellcybpwr wrote:
| okay... i'll bite: how does one use a card online without
| providing phone or email?
| ruined wrote:
| you can't
| wolverine876 wrote:
| There are credit card services that provide some privacy,
| such as proxies: I've heard of Abine, Privacy, and something
| called Final, but I haven't looked into them.
| jeofken wrote:
| I try to use Offset credit when possible - yet only with nerd
| friends
| saxonww wrote:
| I don't know if this actually makes things better or worse -
| I do it in the hope I can shut down spam by removing a
| compromised address - but I try very hard to use a different
| email address for every business I purchase from.
|
| You don't always have to provide a phone number, either. Most
| of the time yes, but I don't think the phone number is
| actually required to complete a credit card transaction.
|
| There also used to be credit providers - maybe there still
| are? - that would let you generate a new card number for each
| purchase. That too may accomplish nothing from a tracking
| perspective, since the credit provider would be able to match
| up all the numbers. But, if I had that capability, I would
| use it.
| hexa22 wrote:
| I have once had a phone call about an online purchase
| telling me I had to pay extra taxes for the import.
| everyone wrote:
| Hmm this article on corps casually gathering data on people has
| an awful dark pattern GDPR implementation.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Kroger has felt especially intrusive for a couple of decades;
| it's almost as though they're going out of their way to be
| manipulative and creepy, right from the store layout where Pepsi
| is $87.00 at your feet and Coke is $0.75 at eye level, down to
| the personalized coupons they send you in the mail. But the big
| stores that don't have loyalty cards are still slurping up data;
| they just get it from your credit card and their cameras. I don't
| know what the answer is, beyond just trying to frequent farmers'
| markets.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > But the big stores that don't have loyalty cards are still
| slurping up data; they just get it from your credit card and
| their cameras.
|
| True. If you're paying with a card, you might as well use the
| loyalty program as well.
|
| And be sure to put your cellphone in airplane mode before you
| get to the store.
| opportune wrote:
| I hate the idea of facial recognition tech being used like this
| but I really don't mind loyalty cards/using credit cards to
| track spending as long as the data is only used by the stores
| themselves (and not also sold wholesale to the highest bidders,
| which I bet it is).
|
| I think it's fair for them to gather analytics on spending
| habits and use it to make decisions on how to stock their
| store, run promotions, etc. Same for personalized coupons.
| Feels weird, but is pretty harmless, and I'm pretty sure
| they're just trying to get you to try new things (like for me,
| beyond meat) so you start regularly purchasing it.
| norov wrote:
| No it's not really fair. Until I start seeing Kroger going
| out of their way to support data provacy initiatives and
| consumer protections, correctly assume they have ill intent
| with your data.
| missedthecue wrote:
| What is the worst that could happen if Kroger learns that I
| use my rewards card to purchase a loaf of wonderbread and
| other assorted groceries every week?
| after_care wrote:
| Pay cash, wear a hat and a mask in store, decline to give them
| PII. It's a pretty simple and effective solution.
| mbg721 wrote:
| But then don't I become that guy from the xkcd comic whose
| license plate is all 1s and Is?
| swiley wrote:
| Don't drive. You have to register your vehicle with the
| state and your current address.
| mbg721 wrote:
| It's very confusing, sharing an apartment with all these
| _other_ guys also called Rusty Shackleford whose phone
| number is 867-5309.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| It's okay, whenever someone threatens you just rely on
| the trusty ol' pocket sand technique!
|
| https://youtu.be/PTAXUYLbFYk
| 6510 wrote:
| The 86.9-87.5 kg, 170-178 cm hat+mask guy without a cell
| phone wants to buy security and self defense items.
| kyleee wrote:
| Just disguise yourself as a birthing person
| titzer wrote:
| And walk like a penguin? They have gait recognition.
|
| Revel in the dystopia that's already here. Soon it will be
| Gattaca. De-gene-erate!
| ngngngng wrote:
| Walk without rhythym, you won't attract the worm
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| You're just delaying the inevitable penguin gait
| recognition.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Gravel in the shoes, like Cory Doctorow foretold...
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Use the scooters they provide for mobility-impaired people.
|
| Note you shouldn't _actually_ do this because you 're
| taking away a scarce resource that might actually be needed
| by other people who can't walk, but it would defeat gait
| recognition. You can always bring your own scooter, but
| you'd have to bring a different one every time or you could
| be identified by the scooter. Since that would get quite
| expensive, you might need to pool resources with other
| privacy-minded individuals to maintain a shared group of
| scooters.
| HanShotFirst wrote:
| Make sure to wear gloves so they can't get your
| fingerprint off of the scooter handles.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| >I don't know what the answer is
|
| I know this isn't a privilege available to everyone, but I just
| shop at a locally owned city grocery that isn't part of a
| national conglomerate. I don't think Good Life Grocery and
| Rainbow are scanning my face...or maybe I'm one of the
| oblivious shoppers from the article?
| mbg721 wrote:
| Well, I'm in Cincinnati, roughly the 25th largest metro area
| in the US. When I grew up, there were IGAs, but I think
| they're all gone now. We have various farmers' markets, and a
| couple of one-off independent grocers, and then there's
| Jungle Jim's, which is sort of a combination grocery-
| store/amusement-park. I don't know if they're scanning my
| face or not, but if they are, it's so they know what kind of
| hot-sauce wall to build.
| jdeibele wrote:
| I wonder if there's a Winco or local equivalent for you? They
| don't accept credit cards, only debit cards, checks, and cash.
| No loyalty programs. And you have to bag your own groceries. I
| switched from using a debit card to cash just because I like
| the idea that I'm not being tracked at all.
|
| WinCo Foods, Inc. is a privately held, majority employee-
| owned[5][6][7] American supermarket chain based in Boise,
| Idaho, with retail stores in Arizona, California, Idaho,
| Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,[8] Utah, and
| Washington. It was founded in 1967 as a no-frills warehouse-
| style store with low prices.
| silisili wrote:
| I don't really understand the loyalty card thing anyways.
|
| When I lived in the midwest, I'd just get a card from Kroger
| but never fill out the paperwork. I thought I was being clever,
| but as pointed out, they still track you by your payment
| method. With that being the case, why do loyalty cards still
| exist? For cash buyers?
| asdff wrote:
| To drive demand to certain items at certain times. Not
| everything is always on sale with the card.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| My answer is to not worry about it and be glad that these
| practices lower prices.
| npteljes wrote:
| They lower prices how you get free email from Google,
| seemingly a good deal. When in reality email costs as low as
| 1 EUR/mo to be a long-term viable business.
| swiley wrote:
| Email is free if you already have a domain name and a
| public IP.
| teawrecks wrote:
| And maintain/pay for an email server.
| swiley wrote:
| You already have to have a computer anyway.
| swiley wrote:
| It worked well for the non-jewish Germans I guess.
| 9dev wrote:
| This comment might sound cynical, but it's spot on.
| fukmbas wrote:
| Yeah who gives a shit how many tampons I buy
| Vinnl wrote:
| What if they don't actually lower prices, but use your
| purchase history to learn what gets you to spend more money?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| In Canada, 'price discrimination' is a criminal offence.
| Cuz you know, if something is anti-consumer and impacts
| rich people, strong laws will be written against it.
|
| But there's many ways around it.
| detaro wrote:
| How do they lower prices?
| missedthecue wrote:
| If fewer people shoplift, the shrinkage rate lowers and
| grocery stores have more room to play with the price
| because their margin is wider. This is why inner city
| stores with higher shrinkage rates charge higher prices and
| why memberships stores like Costco which have almost no
| shoplifting losses at all can be so competitive.
|
| If facial recognition is able to reduce theft, prices will
| likely be competed downwards over time.
| titzer wrote:
| Exactly. It doesn't lower prices. What it really does is
| increases profits, which allows them to grow _faster_ than
| local markets and they can expand and wipe out even more
| groceries and ends up as a big fat bonus for the executives
| and shareholders.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| They raise prices, then give you a "discount."
| Spivak wrote:
| I feel like this misunderstands sales and discounting
| systems. Because it's a snappy line which is technically
| true but the long answer is way weirder.
|
| I'm just gonna use Kroger as an example because they use
| "club pricing", rotating club pricing, actual sales,
| "manager specials", and closeout sales.
|
| - Everything by default is priced at MSRP, that's the price
| on the white price tags or the yellow price tags that don't
| have a corresponding white price.
|
| - Then they use club pricing which is the price on the
| "yellow" tags that aren't formatted like number/$dollars
| like 3/$5 or 2/$4. This is the price you would compare to
| Walmart.
|
| - Then there is rolling club pricing which is like 2/$5 but
| always unit priced to your benefit. So they will mark 2/$4
| but the unit price is $2.
|
| These aren't actually sales in any meaningful sense. But
| the next ones are.
|
| - The actual sales require a minimum unit purchase. You
| probably see these when buying soda or vitamins. If you
| compare prices to other stores this is only time you'll see
| the unit price actually smaller than other stores. The "buy
| n get $n" deals are also in this category but are way more
| gameified.
|
| - Then there are "manager specials" i.e. "woohoo!" deals
| which are priced with stickers and also actually discounts.
|
| - Finally there are closeout deals which are white tags
| usually steeply discounted and don't require a card to get.
|
| I really hate that all this garbage works. I really
| appreciate stores that just post a price.
| JohnFen wrote:
| All that is true, but none of it is a counterargument to
| "They raise prices, then give you a "discount.""
| asciimov wrote:
| The October before covid me and Mrs. Asciimov went on a cruse
| with Royal Caribbean. We got dropped off at the port, put our
| luggage in the loading area, and proceeded to walk inside, all
| without talking to anyone.
|
| Not 30 seconds after walking into the Port Building, a RCL rep
| walked up and greeted me and the mrs by first name. Said please
| walk this way, I have you all checked in, you just need to go
| through the returning voyagers boarding line. (metal
| detector/contraband check)
|
| To be honest it was both creepy to have them just know who I was,
| and kinda awesome to get to skip the regular check in step. I
| asked the lady how she knew who we were, she told us that between
| the cameras in the port and the photos we submitted during the
| cruise purchase they knew who we where, and the information pops
| up on their tablet when they are assigned the next customer.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Photos you submitted during cruise purchase?
| asciimov wrote:
| Yeah, you have to send them a picture of yourself when you
| sign up, like you do for a passport or a drivers license.
|
| It gets attached to your account and when you get on the boat
| you are given an ID card to use to make onboard purchases and
| to disembark from the boat. Every time you leave or get on
| the boat they make sure the photo on your account matches who
| you say you are.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Is this a post-COVID thing? I've been on about a dozen
| cruises, most on Royal Caribbean ships, and they have
| always taken a photo at check in. I've never submitted one
| in advance.
| asciimov wrote:
| I submitted a photo in 2018 as well, probably as part of
| an online pre-registration. I think during this
| particular trip the lady also retook our photos with her
| tablet.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I took a cruise about five years ago, it was a smaller
| line, no photos were involved. I don't think I'd submit
| to them either.
| kazinator wrote:
| Cruises are international travel, so I'm surprised anyone
| would be surprised by ID checks.
| 5faulker wrote:
| Another reason why humans better think twice before taking on
| another convenient technology.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Give me liberty, er convenience, or give me death!
|
| People are lazy by and large, and so if it makes things
| "easier" for them, they will accept without thought.
| JohnFen wrote:
| That would be the last time I went on an RCL cruise.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| But the point is it would be too late, right? So at that
| point, might as well keep taking cruises if you want to.
|
| When the discussion is Albertsons is scanning your face - I'm
| not sure it's practical to think it's avoidable anymore.
| bussierem wrote:
| It's too late to stop, but it's not too late to vote with
| your wallet and feet and stop supporting businesses who
| feel the needs to betray your privacy like this just
| because it was buried in a TOS that they know nobody read.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Unfortunately the vast majority of people like it.
| [deleted]
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| There are a great deal of things many Americans are not aware of.
| Also, what about non - Americans?
| majormajor wrote:
| A headline that just said "Customers" here would be far less
| precise.
|
| (Isn't normally the complain that Americans think themselves
| all that matter in the world, a la "World Series" or "World
| Champions" for sports leagues that span just two countries?
| Can't win either way, I guess!)
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| >A headline that just said "Customers" here would be far less
| precise.
|
| "Shoppers" then. That would be more correct.
|
| >(Isn't normally the complain that Americans think themselves
| all that matter in the world, a la "World Series" or "World
| Champions" for sports leagues that span just two countries?
| Can't win either way, I guess!)
|
| All part of it.
| okareaman wrote:
| You tell us
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Americans seem to focus on themselves more than other
| nationalities.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This is common the world over. What is not common the world
| over is that there is this thing called exceptionalism
| which America uses to tell itself that they are the good
| guys in everything they do and in general better at
| everything they do. This is something I haven't experienced
| anywhere else.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
| gruez wrote:
| Why is this comment thread veering off to "American
| exceptionalism"?. The straigtforward answer as to why the
| title says "Many americans..." is that they conducted a
| nation-wide survey of americans. They could have done a
| global survey, but they didn't, probably because:
|
| 1. it would be much more expensive and logistically
| challenging (eg. localizing the questions)
|
| 2. the readership of the media company that commissioned
| the survey is mostly american
|
| It's not because of "American exceptionalism" or
| whatever.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Because it's a discussion board.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I have never heard any politician here say "British
| people are x" or that "British people feel y". In America
| such expressions appear in almost every speech. Likewise
| for news headlines etc. In the UK the title would be
| "customers not aware" and the like. This is to give the
| (correct) impression that the entire nation has in no way
| been united by this fact. But in the US it seems more
| common to use terminology that lumps everyone together,
| to the exclusion of the rest of the world.
| gruez wrote:
| >I have never heard any politician here say "British
| people are x" or that "British people feel y".
|
| You haven't? Here's some speeches I found using "uk prime
| minister speech":
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49102495
|
| >British people have had enough of waiting.
|
| >Brexit was a fundamental decision by the British people
| [...]
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-leader-
| speech-...
|
| >It will leave the British people wondering [...]
| detaro wrote:
| In the UK it's not even limited to people!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiKmqY_RNME
| karaterobot wrote:
| They polled 31k Americans for this, what do you want the
| article title to be?
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Some shop uses face recognition. Who cares enough to
| bother finding that out? (not to say it isn't important)
| It hardly indicates a social trend.
| amelius wrote:
| ... and even if they were, they wouldn't care much.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-16 23:01 UTC)