[HN Gopher] 7-Eleven breached customer privacy by collecting fac...
___________________________________________________________________
7-Eleven breached customer privacy by collecting facial imagery
without consent
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 153 points
Date : 2021-10-15 14:29 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.zdnet.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.zdnet.com)
| nmstoker wrote:
| Maybe the article has missed detail but it seems to imply that
| 7-Eleven was only asked to stop and to destroy the
| inappropriately collected data and was not given a fine nor any
| other punishment. Is that correct?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Isn't that the benefit of being a large company. You do
| something bad, you get a slap on the wrist and they politely
| ask you to stop. You do it again, same slap.. and they say
| pretty please. Eventually, you just realize that as long as you
| keep paying the politicians you can do pretty much whatever you
| want with little to no consequence?
| leppr wrote:
| Depends on the country. For instance in Europe, GDPR
| enforcement is way more lenient towards small companies, to
| the point where it makes no strategic sense for a startup to
| invest anything but the bare minimum required to feign "good
| intentions". Striving for actual compliance with the letter
| of the law is something only huge companies do.
| aaron695 wrote:
| Still makes me laugh the time the store put cameras on _every_
| fridge door and also replaced the glass with screens as a
| misdirect and all HN could go on about was how smart they were
| they knew about glass.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636773
| hkai wrote:
| I don't see an issue with learning the age of the customers who
| come into the store.
|
| I think a much bigger issue with tech is censorship and
| surveillance of political opposition, not the recording of
| someone's age and gender.
| uoaei wrote:
| Now do the rest of the corporations who have installed cameras in
| their stores.
| czbond wrote:
| Walmart is bound to be collecting facial images - but I don't
| know if they have a consent clause somewhere in store / receipt.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| They are and they share those images and data with other
| retailers in order to build up dossiers on "problem" customers.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Except in Illinois, where that is illegal.
|
| If it's not illegal in your state, it's time to start
| petitioning your elected officials.
|
| If you don't, then you're part of the problem and shouldn't
| complain about the situation on the internet.
| crysin wrote:
| Another fun fact of Illinois protecting its citizens with
| that law is that schools like DePaul and Northwestern are
| currently being sued for violating Illinois' biometric laws
| with the use of facial recognizing proctoring software.
|
| https://dailynorthwestern.com/2021/02/18/campus/nu-faces-
| law...
|
| https://depauliaonline.com/52893/news/depaul-sued-over-
| facia...
| nitrogen wrote:
| Their self-checkout systems have an insane number of cameras
| per station, including one pointed right at your face. I don't
| doubt it's being saved for expression analysis as each product
| is swiped.
| pengaru wrote:
| I've noticed not only the local 7-11 PoS terminals now have
| embedded cameras, but also Home Depot's newer all-in-one
| computers at the self-checkout include an embedded camera.
|
| It's obnoxious and rude. You wouldn't be OK with anyone shoving a
| camera point-blank in your face while doing business with them.
| That's exactly what these businesses are subjecting their in-
| person retail customers to.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| When's the last time retail didn't have cameras, the 60s?
| belter wrote:
| I hope then you dont mind I point my camera at you? :-)
|
| https://youtu.be/AQgiLK5HuiA
| pengaru wrote:
| There's a substantial difference between areal cameras for
| loss prevention and a camera literally inches from your face
| in terms of invasiveness and hostility.
| belter wrote:
| You do not know what zoom level they are in the shop, most
| likely they have microphones on and their resolution:
|
| http://www.ltsecurityinc.com/citysurveillance
|
| The only difference is that in one case, you are conscious
| on being filmed. In another case you know you are being
| filmed, but you prefer not to think about it...
| pengaru wrote:
| What's your point? The areal cameras in the shop,
| regardless of zoom level, are not being replaced by the
| cameras in your face and _only_ in your face; it 's an
| additive situation.
|
| The cameras in your face are _only_ effective for
| capturing your face /person in detail, and they are
| presumably being applied to _every_ customer wholesale,
| automatically during checkout, and _probably_ associated
| with your purchase and payment information.
|
| You're arguing as if this isn't any different than the
| status quo, when it obviously is.
|
| Now we not only have the areal cameras that were
| presumably only zoomed-in on suspicious behaving
| customers for loss prevention, we also have every single
| in-person purchase being captured zoomed-in, regardless
| of behavior, with a camera lens right in your face.
|
| It's as if retail has decided to actively encourage
| everyone with any shred of self-respect to stop shopping
| retail and buy everything from Amazon. If you treat me
| like a presumed criminal I'm going to take my business
| elsewhere. What's next, metal detectors and armed guards
| at the doors?
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| Installation of cameras at face level is nothing new.
| Equipment like self checkout kiosks and ATMs have had
| (usually discrete) cameras in the user's eyeline for
| decades. Higher theft targets like banks and convenience
| stores install (often hidden, sometimes not) cameras at
| eye level at the entrance and exit doors. Hidden in the
| height stick is common in banks, grocery stores tend to
| just install normal domes at head height. This is all in
| response to the simple fact that wearing a baseball cap
| is enough to prevent ceiling-mounted cameras getting your
| face, and your face is exactly what the police want to be
| able to see after a theft.
|
| I don't intend to defend the use of facial recognition in
| these applications, just saying that cameras for face
| capture date back to the early days of continuous video
| surveillance in the '80s, and although I haven't seen it
| myself I assume there were some users that installed
| hold-up cameras at eye level in the '60s - certainly the
| importance of getting a clear view of the face was
| discussed in articles about hold up cameras, but in that
| time it was less common for people to wear hats indoors
| (and bank security would typically require people to
| remove them).
| pempem wrote:
| Here's the thing about the entire argument thread.
|
| It not being new is not reason enough for it to continue.
|
| It already existing does not mean we should never revisit
| this decision.
|
| The technology on the other side of the feed _is_ new and
| it _has_ changed tremendously.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| Has it, though? While much discussed, facial recognition
| on surveillance is very expensive in practice and so
| uncommon to a degree I think many here would find
| surprising. The article here discussed facial imagery
| captured by handheld cameras, not involving the
| surveillance system. That's why I think it's important to
| split these hairs: video surveillance recording of faces
| for post-incident use is very different from proactive
| use of facial recognition. The former has been accepted
| for decades as a practical necessity for investigation of
| crime. The latter is new. I think that framing the
| discussion around cameras at face level, which is not
| new, misses the point and starts from a premise that will
| be wholly rejected by the industry. We need to focus
| instead on the use of automated technology to process
| this data, which is new and not yet widely practiced.
|
| That is changing. Newer self checkout terminals correlate
| video from both cameras with purchase history, primarily
| as a short-term local aid to staff when figuring out
| discrepancies. But this can obviously be extended to a
| long-term retention business intelligence application.
| The time is now to put pressure against this kind of data
| collection. But saying "there should be no cameras
| pointed at the face" will not apply that pressure. It
| will be dismissed because the use of cameras for face
| capture is a universally accepted anti-crime practice,
| and arguing against it as a way to object to mass
| surveillance ignores the differences between short term
| retention of data for post incident use and mass
| collection.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, it's terrible. I do the only thing that's really possible
| for an individual to do -- I stop entering those businesses
| entirely.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Home Depot 's newer all-in-one computers at the self-checkout
| include an embedded camera._
|
| Makes me glad I never - ever - use self-checkout.
|
| I'm not interested in helping replace human jobs with robots
| just so a bean counter in a boardroom somewhere can buy a
| second boat.
|
| Occasionally, the self-checkout "team member" will come over to
| me while I'm standing in line and offer to help me use the
| self-checkout. I tell her, "I'd rather not help {$company}
| replace your job with a robot."
|
| I expect a lot of times they think I'm a kook. But every once
| in a while they pause and I can see the realization washing
| over their faces. Then I feel like I've accomplished a small
| thing that day.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Walmart and Target do it too. Insert card, supply an identity
| to go with the frames the camera is capturing. Do that a few
| times and you've got a training set to identify an individual.
| hammock wrote:
| >I've noticed not only the local 7-11 PoS terminals now have
| embedded cameras, but also Home Depot's newer all-in-one
| computers at the self-checkout include an embedded camera.
|
| Starbucks card readers too. Pointed right up at your face. I
| emailed the local store manager about it, who said he'd get
| back to me but never did.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What did you expect the local store manager was going to be
| able to say or do?
| hammock wrote:
| Get me a policy or some sort of response in writing from
| their corporate overlords.
|
| Edit: just got an update. Here's what he said:
|
| _> So sorry for never responding! We are not using the
| cameras on the POS card readers. You will see when it asks
| you to swipe the card that it has an eye crossed out to
| signify that it is not actively using the camera to look at
| the customer. _
| leppr wrote:
| Sounds like someone at Starbucks saw your HN comment and
| ran a search for your email to ping the relevant manager.
| Impressive if not just a coincidence.
| hammock wrote:
| Ha that would be cool but actually I just followed up on
| my old email
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Starbucks card readers too. Pointed right up at your face_
|
| Here's your act of civil disobedience for the day: Try to
| remember to bring a tiny strip of Scotch tape with you the
| next time you're at Starbucks. If you do remember, and if
| nobody's looking, put the tape over the lens. Hopefully the
| piece of tape is small enough to be inconspicuous, and fuzzy
| enough from being in your pocket that it ruins the camera's
| view.
| hammock wrote:
| Yep i don't visit enough Starbucks that often anymore but
| that's not a terrible idea
| impressivemess wrote:
| Every single store today is doing that, and you never know when
| you're getting recorded for some AI training.
|
| Even after Covid is over, I'd feel comfortable continuing with
| the mask!
| dylan604 wrote:
| Based on the animosity of the masks, I would not be surprised
| where you will not be allowed to wear a mask in public just
| so some people can prove a point. Buisness owners are already
| refusing service to people wearing masks in some places (you
| can probably guess where if you're not already familiar).
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| This is something I've noticed recently and I'm actually glad
| that masks are socially acceptable in public now for this very
| reason.
| glitcher wrote:
| I think facial recognition may be fairly accurate in some
| cases even when wearing a mask. Somewhat anecdotal, but saw
| this article recently:
|
| https://onezero.medium.com/you-can-fool-a-popular-facial-
| rec...
| notdang wrote:
| I've read the article and it's about facial detection - it
| detects that there is a face on the picture.
|
| Haven't read anything about identifying the person wearing
| the mask.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Systems are getting pretty good at working around masks,
| but the error rate is still greater when masked than when
| unmasked.
|
| With most systems, if you want to maximize the error rate
| then you should wear a solid black mask that covers the
| entirety of your lower face.
| drpgq wrote:
| OK a mask with someone else's face
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Having actually worked in the space, no one cares about
| identifying you*
|
| They're trying to do sentiment analysis and maybe some
| sort of classification on age/gender
|
| *Yes, I'm sure if you Google for an anecdote of a system
| that did identify users you'll find one, but it really
| gains nothing in the space. They already have your card
| data and rewards programs, usually what they care about
| it sentiment and demographics at a specific spot in the
| store
| dylan604 wrote:
| Every single ATM has done this since Moses was kneehigh to a
| grasshopper.
| [deleted]
| Randosaurus wrote:
| Oddly enough, I've had my fingers knuckle deep in the vagina
| of my girlfriend, yet for some reason it's not acceptable for
| me to do it to every single woman I meet.
|
| It's almost as if context makes an action acceptable in one
| instance and not another.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Except that's not what 7-11 did here. They took photos from a
| tablet, as select customers were taking a survey.
|
| Doing that without consent is still obnoxious, but a far cry
| from embedding a camera in the PoS terminal that captures
| everybody as they check-out. 7-11 might also do that, but it
| wasn't reported here.
| sixothree wrote:
| Ok. Firstly, whoever did that is one sick creep. Secondly,
| Why!? What value is added?
| kjaftaedi wrote:
| They did it with consent.
|
| The issue is that regardless of whether the users gave
| consent, their actions still ran afoul of Australian law.
| theteapot wrote:
| There was no consent. I've done that "survey". No idea my
| photo was being taken or that there was even a camera.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| The cameras that are certainly watching you at checkout are the
| same ones you know or should know are watching you in every
| retail establishment in the country. The ones overhead.
| Retailers use a relatively small number of cameras mounted
| overhead in order to have broad coverage of a large area that
| is hard to obscure.
|
| I do not know for absolute certain, and couldn't divulge it if
| I did, but I am about 99% sure that the cameras mounted in the
| all in one systems are part of the standard equipment included
| with that model of computer NOT part of store surveillance
| coverage which is more than adequately served by existing
| cameras. That is to say that it would be a waste of resources
| to watch the other cameras watch you.
|
| The key is that they include user facing sliding camera covers
| designed for users to secure their privacy. This wouldn't be
| true if they were intended to watch you.
|
| The reason you are being watched is that people steal and
| people steal MORE when dealing with a machine because they feel
| less guilty about doing it perceptibly to a machine rather than
| cheating in front of an actual cashier.
|
| The Atlantic did a piece on it where it was found that around 1
| in 5 people stole from SCO and about 4% of merchandise that
| went through SCO wasn't paid for.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/stealin...
| black_13 wrote:
| Funny I could see anyone of people ive worked with coming up with
| some idea like this and saying "cool".
| avalys wrote:
| Am I breaching the privacy of the people I saw at the grocery
| store yesterday because I can remember what their faces look
| like?
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| As much as I dislike this line of argumentation, I think it is
| important to address it, because people seem to be applying
| wrong standards and comparisons, when it comes privacy.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| > Am I breaching the privacy of the people I saw at the grocery
| store yesterday because I can remember what their faces look
| like?
|
| You remembering faces is fine as it doesn't allow you to share
| with others what your mind "recorded". The amount of detail is
| questionable and you'd probably not remember everyone and
| everything but what strikes you as unusual/suspect etc..
|
| Second, since you're not a machine you wouldn't be able to run
| algorithms on the data you recorded, you'd make a few
| inferences here and there and that is normal but you wouldn't
| be able to study the psychology of every customer that entered
| your store and use it against them.
| devmor wrote:
| No, and neither would the corporation be if they were doing
| that.
|
| But you are not a corporation, nor are you a computer, nor are
| you storing that data in any appreciable amount or manner in
| which it could be referenced for the purposes of operating a
| corporation.
| munificent wrote:
| If a bit of mayo falls off my sandwich while I'm at the beach,
| have I created an oil spill?
|
| Scale and context matters.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| No. It was wonderful when the person who worked the deli at a
| customer site where I worked for a few weeks learned my face
| and remembered what I liked to order. If I wanted privacy,
| though, I could get it.
|
| However, _scale matters._ An action being condoned between two
| individuals does not imply that it 's acceptable when repeated
| millions of times.
|
| It shouldn't generate any outrage if a police officer tailed a
| suspect from a vehicle description and (publicly visible!)
| license plate number. It should generate outrage if the police
| department installs automated license plate readers at
| intersections throughout the city, and it becomes impossible to
| drive anywhere without being tracked.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >and it becomes impossible to drive anywhere without being
| tracked.
|
| Might want to start with the mobile networks saving your
| phone's location history. I do not mind the use of license
| plate readers on cops' cars, if cops are actually going to
| start pulling over people who have not paid car taxes or are
| not displaying license plates or do not have insurance.
|
| I would also like automated variate rate congestion tolling
| with license plate readers. That would help manage road
| capacity and grid lock, and make the costs of commuting more
| transparent.
| holknas wrote:
| no, nor are you doing it at a massive country wide scale into a
| datacenter.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| more than one country-wide; side note, Southland Corp was
| convicted of slavery-related charges at a US location.. no
| similarity to stores in Asia of course!
|
| source: daily news, details on request
| capableweb wrote:
| Are you a corporation going around asking for answers,
| photographing them and storing the images for long term storage
| without informing them about this? If not, then no, you are not
| breaching the privacy of anyone.
|
| I know in the US corporations are basically the same as humans,
| but the rest of the world haven't gotten than dystopian yet.
| ajay-b wrote:
| This occurs in America routinely, dating to 20+ years ago.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| All I wanted was a Pepsi!
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > https://soundcloud.com/deivid-dos-santos-
| fernandes/8-2-insti... song lyrics :D
| LambdaTrain wrote:
| Same with Rite Aid stores around my school. The auto checkout
| machine has been equipped with cameras since pandemic (about one
| yr ago). It gave me a sense of intrusion.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| That's the point. The self checkout cameras are just there to
| let you know you're being watched; why else would they make
| them as in-your-face as they are?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-15 23:02 UTC)