I'm probably OK with it as long as ALL OF the following apply: (1) Only used within private property. No cameras pointing out into the streets. (2) Used for s

I'm probably OK with it as long as ALL OF the following apply: (1) Only used within private property. No cameras pointing out into the streets. (2) Used for security purposes only, not marketing or tracking the customers and selling a profile of them to other organizations. (3) Adequate IT practices so that access is restricted to only employees who need it and so it isn't hacked into and used for whatever nefarious purposes. (4) Deployed based on objective criteria based on real data, like loss (theft) rates of stores. Not some regional manager looking at a map and deciding that these stores get it and these others don't based on their subjective idea of what qualifies as a good neighborhood and a bad neighborhood. (5) Technology can be shown not to treat one group of people worse than another. You don't want scenarios like a system that, when dealing with people of one race, is bad at differentiating individuals, so that a legit ban on a person of that race results in a higher false positive rate for others of that race. For #2 and #3, it would probably help to just not record (or have very limited retention) of the data. For #4 and #5, some of this might already be legally required already in the US because of existing civil rights laws that prohibit denying customers access based on race, etc.