4 ms·

I'm honestly perplexed by the discussion here. Why should I care that a grocery store is using this? They already have camera systems - what is it about feeding

by oramit 5y ago

I'm honestly perplexed by the discussion here. Why should I care that a grocery store is using this? They already have camera systems - what is it about feeding that data into a facial recognition algorithm that is so awful? They want to identify who their customers are and already do a good job of it with loyalty cards. I often have to show my ID when I buy beer. I'm in a public place where I have no expectation of privacy. I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi. What exactly should I be trying to hide here?

tiagod 5y ago
I find it absurd. But I live in a county where CCTV can only be used for loss-prevention.
burntoutfire 5y ago
Society is by its nature in part adversarial. If one group gets a new powerful tool at their disposal, it may change the current balance of power in their advantage. Just see how it works in an opposite case - crypto - where the common folks may increase, through innovative technology, their freedom from being herded by governments. The governments are extremely concerned about it, even though cryptocurrencies are perfectly legal and theoretically don't change much (it's just another means of transacting and storing value).
eat_veggies 5y ago
You don't think there is a qualitative difference between your security footage getting recorded -- maybe watched by a security guard half-paying attention -- and then written over, versus having it analyzed, tracked, and stored for an unknowable amount of time? Or a difference between having the option of presenting your loyalty card, versus having your face implicitly being your loyalty card, with no way of knowing, and no way to opt out? Or a cashier glancing at your ID to check that it's legit and promptly forgetting about it, versus having it scanned and tied to the transaction, and combined with your other behavioral data? When you see a camera on the street corner, is that the same to you as greeting your neighbor?
- oramit 5y ago
  There is a difference, yes. Most security footage is never viewed. It's simply recorded and then reviewed later if there is an issue. What facial recognition adds is that it identifies my presence there automatically but again - this is a grocery store we're talking about. It's a public place and I have no expectation of privacy. They can identify that I entered the store, what aisles I went down, then at checkout can see what I bought. And why do I care? I'm really not being edgy or flippant with that question. What is the concern here?
titzer 5y ago
2025: Why should I care if a grocery has my DNA and fingerprints? They already have facial recognition and a record of everything I ever bought, it's not like they are sharing it with anyone. Also 2025: Why should I care if my gym has facial recognition technology? 2026: Why should I care if a grocery shares my DNA and entire purchase history with my insurance provider? It's not like I'm obese. I go to the gym. 2027: Why should I care that my insurance provider has DNA sequencing technology, my entire purchase history from every grocery store ever, my gym history, my driving history, my family history, a record of my health and fitness habits? I'm healthy. 2030: I suddenly have $500,000 in health bills because my health insurance provider dropped me 1 week before I had a sudden heart attack and presented 400 pages of evidence to the judge that it was justified based on the policy violations they repeatedly caught me doing. I guess I didn't read the fine print! I guess I shouldn't have smoked that one cigarette outside the bar when I was drunk that night, or have gotten drunk in the first place. And that burger on the fourth of July. I agree, in hindsight, that was over the line. All those premiums, and they drop me the second I am no longer profitable to them! But they're a business, they provide a valuable service to people who couldn't otherwise afford healtchare, so...
- standardUser 5y ago
  All of these concerns can be prevented with effective laws, which most people would agree is a better solution that boycotting the world or wearing elaborate disguises in public (as has been suggested in many other comments here).
- oramit 5y ago
  If i'm reading this right, i see two arguments here. The first is a slippery slope. They are starting to use facial recognition now and will soon be asking for my DNA and fingerprints. I just don't agree that the slope is slippery. Why would my grocery store care to collect that information? We're talking about grocery store items - the company just wants to know what i'm buying so they can send me ads to buy more stuff. They have no interest in my fingerprints or DNA. This honestly just comes off as paranoid and conspiratorial. The second argument is more interesting. You fear that different databases (grocery, driving, fitness, etc) will be joined together and deployed against us. I don't think this is an unreasonable fear at all. However, I totally disagree that fighting this on the collection side will be fruitful. The unfortunate conclusion i've come to here is that there is no individual action I can take to stop the collection and collation of all this data. I can limit how much information I share - which I do when necessary - but again, what i'm buying at the grocery store is not the privacy hill worth dying on. Instead the better way to fight this is with laws. The specific example you brought up is Health insurance discrimination but the problem with your example is that large parts of it are already banned by law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim... The Affordable Care Act added even more limits to what insurers can do to decide on rates.
RHSeeger 5y ago
> I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi. There is a considerable difference between low data density, person to person, information... and high density, machine gathered, massive data stores. The later is much easier and more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.
- oramit 5y ago
  I understand that but stores have been storing this sort of customer data for decades now and what nefarious things have come of it? Nobody cares that I bought milk and eggs last week, they won't care two decades from now.

by oramit 5y ago

tiagod 5y ago

I find it absurd. But I live in a county where CCTV can only be used for loss-prevention.

burntoutfire 5y ago

Society is by its nature in part adversarial. If one group gets a new powerful tool at their disposal, it may change the current balance of power in their advantage. Just see how it works in an opposite case - crypto - where the common folks may increase, through innovative technology, their freedom from being herded by governments. The governments are extremely concerned about it, even though cryptocurrencies are perfectly legal and theoretically don't change much (it's just another means of transacting and storing value).

eat_veggies 5y ago

You don't think there is a qualitative difference between your security footage getting recorded -- maybe watched by a security guard half-paying attention -- and then written over, versus having it analyzed, tracked, and stored for an unknowable amount of time? Or a difference between having the option of presenting your loyalty card, versus having your face implicitly being your loyalty card, with no way of knowing, and no way to opt out? Or a cashier glancing at your ID to check that it's legit and promptly forgetting about it, versus having it scanned and tied to the transaction, and combined with your other behavioral data? When you see a camera on the street corner, is that the same to you as greeting your neighbor?

oramit 5y ago
There is a difference, yes. Most security footage is never viewed. It's simply recorded and then reviewed later if there is an issue. What facial recognition adds is that it identifies my presence there automatically but again - this is a grocery store we're talking about. It's a public place and I have no expectation of privacy. They can identify that I entered the store, what aisles I went down, then at checkout can see what I bought. And why do I care? I'm really not being edgy or flippant with that question. What is the concern here?

titzer 5y ago

2025: Why should I care if a grocery has my DNA and fingerprints? They already have facial recognition and a record of everything I ever bought, it's not like they are sharing it with anyone. Also 2025: Why should I care if my gym has facial recognition technology? 2026: Why should I care if a grocery shares my DNA and entire purchase history with my insurance provider? It's not like I'm obese. I go to the gym. 2027: Why should I care that my insurance provider has DNA sequencing technology, my entire purchase history from every grocery store ever, my gym history, my driving history, my family history, a record of my health and fitness habits? I'm healthy. 2030: I suddenly have $500,000 in health bills because my health insurance provider dropped me 1 week before I had a sudden heart attack and presented 400 pages of evidence to the judge that it was justified based on the policy violations they repeatedly caught me doing. I guess I didn't read the fine print! I guess I shouldn't have smoked that one cigarette outside the bar when I was drunk that night, or have gotten drunk in the first place. And that burger on the fourth of July. I agree, in hindsight, that was over the line. All those premiums, and they drop me the second I am no longer profitable to them! But they're a business, they provide a valuable service to people who couldn't otherwise afford healtchare, so...

standardUser 5y ago
All of these concerns can be prevented with effective laws, which most people would agree is a better solution that boycotting the world or wearing elaborate disguises in public (as has been suggested in many other comments here).
oramit 5y ago
If i'm reading this right, i see two arguments here. The first is a slippery slope. They are starting to use facial recognition now and will soon be asking for my DNA and fingerprints. I just don't agree that the slope is slippery. Why would my grocery store care to collect that information? We're talking about grocery store items - the company just wants to know what i'm buying so they can send me ads to buy more stuff. They have no interest in my fingerprints or DNA. This honestly just comes off as paranoid and conspiratorial. The second argument is more interesting. You fear that different databases (grocery, driving, fitness, etc) will be joined together and deployed against us. I don't think this is an unreasonable fear at all. However, I totally disagree that fighting this on the collection side will be fruitful. The unfortunate conclusion i've come to here is that there is no individual action I can take to stop the collection and collation of all this data. I can limit how much information I share - which I do when necessary - but again, what i'm buying at the grocery store is not the privacy hill worth dying on. Instead the better way to fight this is with laws. The specific example you brought up is Health insurance discrimination but the problem with your example is that large parts of it are already banned by law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim... The Affordable Care Act added even more limits to what insurers can do to decide on rates.

RHSeeger 5y ago

> I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi. There is a considerable difference between low data density, person to person, information... and high density, machine gathered, massive data stores. The later is much easier and more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.

oramit 5y ago
I understand that but stores have been storing this sort of customer data for decades now and what nefarious things have come of it? Nobody cares that I bought milk and eggs last week, they won't care two decades from now.