4 ms·

Doesn't seem like a productive battle. It's only upsides for stores that roll out facial recognition. If you want this stopped you will need legislation.

by bzb3 6y ago

tyingq 6y ago
I suppose it doesn't scale, but public shaming seemed to work in this case: "Last week, however, after Reuters sent its findings to the retailer, Rite Aid said it had quit using its facial recognition software." Though likely because of the higher use in low income neighborhoods than facial recognition overall.
- bzb3 6y ago
  Facial recognition is used mostly to stop shoplifters so it's to be expected that it will be used in low income neighbourhoods mostly. It is a matter of time until it becomes widespread enough that they won't have to back down for shame.
- BlackCherry 6y ago
  Public shaming didn't work, literally at all. The article was released literally today, and the program was ended before anyone knew about it other than reporters. And this won't deter other corporations from employing this technology. We absolutely need legislation to permanently stop this. The free market is not going to magically pop up a competing brick and mortar that doesn't spy on us and/or sell/give our data to other corporations/governments.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  If everybody rolls it out within a short window of a few years, public shaming will be impossible. If there's no non-participating business that a potential customer can choose instead, shame costs nothing. See Smart TVs.
superkuh 6y ago
Do you think it's justified to bring in the use of government force and coercion in a situation where no one is being injured, no one is being defrauded, and people are voluntarily going to the private property on which the events occur? It would be much more ethical to personally stop going to the store and giving them business if you object (which is a valid opinion, imo). Encouraging others to do the same, spreading news about the practice, etc, all seems good. But once you start calling for people with guns to coerce the property owners you're doing something unethical.

Doesn't seem like a productive battle. It's only upsides for stores that roll out facial recognition. If you want this stopped you will need legislation.

by bzb3 6y ago

Doesn't seem like a productive battle. It's only upsides for stores that roll out facial recognition. If you want this stopped you will need legislation.

tyingq 6y ago

I suppose it doesn't scale, but public shaming seemed to work in this case: "Last week, however, after Reuters sent its findings to the retailer, Rite Aid said it had quit using its facial recognition software." Though likely because of the higher use in low income neighborhoods than facial recognition overall.

bzb3 6y ago
Facial recognition is used mostly to stop shoplifters so it's to be expected that it will be used in low income neighbourhoods mostly. It is a matter of time until it becomes widespread enough that they won't have to back down for shame.
BlackCherry 6y ago
Public shaming didn't work, literally at all. The article was released literally today, and the program was ended before anyone knew about it other than reporters. And this won't deter other corporations from employing this technology. We absolutely need legislation to permanently stop this. The free market is not going to magically pop up a competing brick and mortar that doesn't spy on us and/or sell/give our data to other corporations/governments.
pessimizer 6y ago
If everybody rolls it out within a short window of a few years, public shaming will be impossible. If there's no non-participating business that a potential customer can choose instead, shame costs nothing. See Smart TVs.

superkuh 6y ago

Do you think it's justified to bring in the use of government force and coercion in a situation where no one is being injured, no one is being defrauded, and people are voluntarily going to the private property on which the events occur? It would be much more ethical to personally stop going to the store and giving them business if you object (which is a valid opinion, imo). Encouraging others to do the same, spreading news about the practice, etc, all seems good. But once you start calling for people with guns to coerce the property owners you're doing something unethical.