4 ms·

So if I don't think that Walmart should be able to record me with security cameras while I'm in the store I should have the right to demand that they ask me to

So if I don't think that Walmart should be able to record me with security cameras while I'm in the store I should have the right to demand that they ask me to sign a waiver before entering the store? Shouldn't it be Walmart's right to do what they want on their property, and my right to decide not to visit Walmart if I don't agree with that. Isn't the converse an infringement of Walmart's rights?

enraged_camel 8y ago
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the cameras at Walmart are for security only. I don't believe Walmart is using facial-recognition technology to identify visitors, track their behaviors (which aisles they visit, how long they look at specific products, etc.) and then using it to other retailers for them to then target those visitors with ads.
- isostatic 8y ago
  OK, it's the petrol station part of the supermarket, but "Tesco is set to install hi-tech screens that scan customers' faces in petrol stations so that advertisements can be tailored to suit them, it has been reported. The retailer will introduce the OptimEyes screen, developed by Lord Sugar's Amscreen, to all 450 of its UK petrol stations, in a five-year deal, according to The Grocer. The screen, positioned at the till, scans the eyes of customers to determine age and gender, and then runs tailored advertisements." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/03/privacy-tesco-scan-customers-faces https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/03/privacy-tes...
FooBarWidget 8y ago
Sometimes, guaranteeing freedom for one party requires taking away freedom/rights from another party. For example freedom from slavery means taking away the right to have slaves. Society has to make a choice: which one is more important? In case of GDPR, the EU has chosen: the privacy of citizen is more important than business concerns.
guitarbill 8y ago
Why are people obsessed with companies rights? Do they not have enough already? There's an asymmetry between what a company can do politically/legally given it's resources and what an individual can do. This is why countries generally have some kind of laws protecting consumers. Security cameras recording footage and it not being used in 99.999% of the time when no crime occurs is fine. The tapes aren't kept forever. Just as having server logs to identify malicious actors i.e. hackers or scammers is fine. What's not fine is e.g. running facial recognition on the security camera footage, or figuring out who bought what (cough Amazon Go).
losteric 8y ago
GDPR has exemptions for security. Your free to track information for the purposes of blocking vulnerability bots, but only the minimum data required for that purpose... and your visitor's data cannot be used for other applications without their consent. > Shouldn't it be Walmart's right to do what they want on their property, and my right to decide not to visit Walmart if I don't agree with that. Isn't the converse an infringement of Walmart's rights? No. Property "rights" are secondary to human rights. Like, Walmart can't knowingly sell poison as food just because it's their property... In your example, Walmart is free to record you on security cameras for security / theft purposes. However, they can't record what you're looking at and reuse that information for targeted advertising without consent - profling is simply not required to do business, so your right not to be profiled wins.
- jamiequint 8y ago
  > “they can't record what you're looking at and reuse that information for targeted advertising without consent” What law prevents them from doing this?
  - losteric 8y ago
    The actual Walmart? Nothing. The previous poster used Walmart's security cameras as a strawman argument against GDPR, which I expanded on.

enraged_camel 8y ago

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the cameras at Walmart are for security only. I don't believe Walmart is using facial-recognition technology to identify visitors, track their behaviors (which aisles they visit, how long they look at specific products, etc.) and then using it to other retailers for them to then target those visitors with ads.

isostatic 8y ago
OK, it's the petrol station part of the supermarket, but "Tesco is set to install hi-tech screens that scan customers' faces in petrol stations so that advertisements can be tailored to suit them, it has been reported. The retailer will introduce the OptimEyes screen, developed by Lord Sugar's Amscreen, to all 450 of its UK petrol stations, in a five-year deal, according to The Grocer. The screen, positioned at the till, scans the eyes of customers to determine age and gender, and then runs tailored advertisements." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/03/privacy-tesco-scan-customers-faces https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/03/privacy-tes...

FooBarWidget 8y ago

Sometimes, guaranteeing freedom for one party requires taking away freedom/rights from another party. For example freedom from slavery means taking away the right to have slaves. Society has to make a choice: which one is more important? In case of GDPR, the EU has chosen: the privacy of citizen is more important than business concerns.

guitarbill 8y ago

Why are people obsessed with companies rights? Do they not have enough already? There's an asymmetry between what a company can do politically/legally given it's resources and what an individual can do. This is why countries generally have some kind of laws protecting consumers. Security cameras recording footage and it not being used in 99.999% of the time when no crime occurs is fine. The tapes aren't kept forever. Just as having server logs to identify malicious actors i.e. hackers or scammers is fine. What's not fine is e.g. running facial recognition on the security camera footage, or figuring out who bought what (cough Amazon Go).

losteric 8y ago

GDPR has exemptions for security. Your free to track information for the purposes of blocking vulnerability bots, but only the minimum data required for that purpose... and your visitor's data cannot be used for other applications without their consent. > Shouldn't it be Walmart's right to do what they want on their property, and my right to decide not to visit Walmart if I don't agree with that. Isn't the converse an infringement of Walmart's rights? No. Property "rights" are secondary to human rights. Like, Walmart can't knowingly sell poison as food just because it's their property... In your example, Walmart is free to record you on security cameras for security / theft purposes. However, they can't record what you're looking at and reuse that information for targeted advertising without consent - profling is simply not required to do business, so your right not to be profiled wins.

jamiequint 8y ago
> “they can't record what you're looking at and reuse that information for targeted advertising without consent” What law prevents them from doing this?
- losteric 8y ago
  The actual Walmart? Nothing. The previous poster used Walmart's security cameras as a strawman argument against GDPR, which I expanded on.