4 ms·

"privacy advocates and industry stakeholders are debating ... how shoppers should be informed about when their faces are scanned" I don't want to be informed w

• mekaj 7y ago
  The former may be a means of getting to the latter. I don’t anticipate it will be made illegal without widespread public awareness and disapproval.
  • soulofmischief 7y ago
    No, it will just facilitate normalization over two generations. This is how it's always been!
• shadowgovt 7y ago
  I want the law to allow such things, because it is extremely useful to me as a consumer and a customer if the system can automatically identify me and attach me to my past history with the company. This dimension of privacy is still open for debate.
  • neiman 7y ago
    Fair point, thought what you described can be achieved in many means beside facial recognition.
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      True, but facial recognition is incredibly convenient. It requires the customer to do no additional work. As a sibling comment notes, this is how general store customer interactions used to be done. The "facial recognition" system in question was the store owner themselves.
      • neiman 7y ago
        > True, but facial recognition is incredibly convenient. It requires the customer to do no additional work. I don't see your point. It's an ethical discussion. Is the goal is to maximize your personal convenience or is the goal is to maximize ethics, while still allowing your extreme convenience? > As a sibling comment notes, this is how general store customer interactions used to be done. The "facial recognition" system in question was the store owner themselves. I disagree with the statement in general, but rather than dissecting it, I'll point out that the issue is "spying", not the particular action of recognizing your face.
        • shadowgovt 7y ago
          > It's an ethical discussion Positioning "maximize your personal convenience" vs "maximize ethics" begs the question of whether the two are opposed. I don't think they are because I don't think it's unethical for a company to use facial recognition (as the OP seems to assume).
  • teflodollar 7y ago
    Strongly disagree. While I can accept that it's supposedly valuable for you as a consumer to be "identified and attached" to a company—even though it's something that I want nothing to do do with and consider a net bad for society—the notion that whole-scale identification of persons entering a store may be an acceptable default behavior is absurd, even before considering the so-called "dimension of privacy." As the other child comment mentioned, there are many ways to identify yourself to a store that don't require facial recognition. The YMCA for example has a system that lets users track their exercise history; there's no reason Macy's couldn't do the same for your purchases. If indiscriminate ID'ing is the default position, then you have decided that _your convenience is more important than the freedom of every other person in the store._ It should be the responsibility of the person who wants this convenience to opt in, not the responsibility of the rest of us to opt out. The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate. But if it's not, we fortunately have hundreds (thousands?) of cases of corporate consumer abuse and irresponsible data storage to point to.
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      Amazon has an entire grocery store experiment that utilizes this is a core element of the experience. It seems to be getting largely positive reviews from its users. > The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate. Why? There is an open question of societal benefit versus personal benefit regarding how PID is tracked and used, to say nothing of the actual ownership of that PID (if you walk into a store's private property and their security cameras record an image of your face while you're standing in their private property, do you own that image? Why should you? You're in their property and it was recorded with a camera they own on to media they own).
  • krick 7y ago
    Get their member card if you want. Your consent shouldn't affect other people.
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      How would my consent to have my image recorded and stored affect other people?
  • Merrill 7y ago
    Back in the day, growing up, the storekeepers may not have known my name, but they certainly knew my parents. I didn't realize until much later that a number of them were my parents second and third cousins. Cheers - where everybody knows your name.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• krick 7y ago
  This. The question should be why they should be allowed to do that in the first place, so "debating" is basically what they want, since it fundamentally side-tracks the discussion. I'm usually against government supervising anything, but if anything, it should be this: why facilities that are pretty much the primary example of a "public place" in modern society should be allowed spying on people without a good reason?
  • neiman 7y ago
    I'm also against government supervision, but there's a different between supervision/regulation (checking that legal activies are indeed being conducted in a legal way), and between make some activities illegal, such as theft, killing - and yes - also spying.