3 ms·

Maybe a solution is the cost of lawsuits from false positives vs the cost of theft from false negatives means shopkeepers or their insurance companies have to m

Maybe a solution is the cost of lawsuits from false positives vs the cost of theft from false negatives means shopkeepers or their insurance companies have to make a reasonable trade-off in how they use that information that keeps most people happy. The odd incorrectly identified person can still get cleared after a bit of inconvenient legal procedure and be paid for their trouble.

krisoft 2y ago
I’m not so sure about those lawsuits. With the current system (as the laws are today) there is very little standing against operators who wrongly ban you. You might get lucky and sue them for defamation if they do something outrageous like call you a thief in front of people. But they probably won’t. It is just so much easier to call you asside and trespass you from the store quietly without giving you a reason, or only giving a very general one. And then you don’t have any standing to sue them. And if we are already proposing new laws to provide standing to sue why would we not also mandate some procedure so people can work out these edge cases among themselves?
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  Seems like there should be some sort of legal protection against being banned from nearly every shop. If it's just one shop owner who doesn't like you for whatever reason, you can go somewhere else, but if they're all sharing information and excluding someone, that's obviously bad. Perhaps this hasn't needed a law before because it was too hard for them all to coordinate on identifying everyone on their blacklist, but with facial recognition provided by a single vendor, it becomes a real risk. This has been an issue with tenancy in my country. A tenant goes to the tenancy tribunal for any reason - even if it's the landlord's fault, and then all property managers, who collectively control most of the rental market, blacklist that person and suddenly they can't live anywhere. With suing, the parties can already work it out among themselves if they both want to avoid going to court. I don't think it needs a mandated procedure. No-win-no-fee lawyers exist to serve poor people who have a clearly winnable case.

krisoft 2y ago

I’m not so sure about those lawsuits. With the current system (as the laws are today) there is very little standing against operators who wrongly ban you. You might get lucky and sue them for defamation if they do something outrageous like call you a thief in front of people. But they probably won’t. It is just so much easier to call you asside and trespass you from the store quietly without giving you a reason, or only giving a very general one. And then you don’t have any standing to sue them. And if we are already proposing new laws to provide standing to sue why would we not also mandate some procedure so people can work out these edge cases among themselves?

EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Seems like there should be some sort of legal protection against being banned from nearly every shop. If it's just one shop owner who doesn't like you for whatever reason, you can go somewhere else, but if they're all sharing information and excluding someone, that's obviously bad. Perhaps this hasn't needed a law before because it was too hard for them all to coordinate on identifying everyone on their blacklist, but with facial recognition provided by a single vendor, it becomes a real risk. This has been an issue with tenancy in my country. A tenant goes to the tenancy tribunal for any reason - even if it's the landlord's fault, and then all property managers, who collectively control most of the rental market, blacklist that person and suddenly they can't live anywhere. With suing, the parties can already work it out among themselves if they both want to avoid going to court. I don't think it needs a mandated procedure. No-win-no-fee lawyers exist to serve poor people who have a clearly winnable case.