3 ms·
Your example wouldn't fall under, because the decision is not applied to humans, only to the products - i.e. there's no "credit scoring customers" and thus impa
by p_l 6y ago
Your example wouldn't fall under, because the decision is not applied to humans, only to the products - i.e. there's no "credit scoring customers" and thus impacting their ability to buy those items, only decision on whether or not to have them in locked boxes.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoYeah, on further research I think you're right. I jumped the gun a little here.
- renewiltord 6y agoThe difference between the Marina Safeway and the Mission Safeway makes it clear this isn't a property of the products alone.
- p_l 6y agoThe point is applying it to people, with effects on the people themselves. Take for example shops that would decide whether you can be served based on face-matching AI. And it's property mainly of impoverishment of the area.
- renewiltord 6y agoPerhaps it's different in the EU but here in SF that is seen as systemic discrimination. But if it is different in the EU, then I won't judge.
- p_l 6y agoWell, it wouldn't fall under this specific proposed law. I'm not going to guarantee that it wouldn't fall against something else.
- renewiltord 6y agoI suppose the slippery slope was something I was concerned about but it doesn't matter.
- Jiro 6y agoNot on the level of an individual person, but on the level of groups of people. People in one neighborhood would have shops with locked boxes and people in another neighborhood would have shops with unlocked boxes. And those neighborhoods could very well have different ethnic compositions. In this case, you can still buy an item when the box is locked, but the same thing could lead to stores in some neighborhoods not carrying commonly stolen items at all.