4 ms·
Strictly to your point about rehabilitation, that doesn't mean the store necessarily needs to let you shop there again. So unless there is a statutory requireme
by pc86 2y ago
Strictly to your point about rehabilitation, that doesn't mean the store necessarily needs to let you shop there again. So unless there is a statutory requirement to the contrary stores would still get that information and presumably there would be a chain-specific SOP about whether or not that person was allowed on the property.
- lkramer 2y agoThat is perhaps reasonable if it's one store, or even a chain, but the article spoke about this applying across multiple chains, whichever used this software. If we end up banning people for life from shopping in physical sto ed because they shoplifted once when they were young, we are creating a deeply disturbing society.
- lsaferite 2y agoI think the danger in systems like this is in the article. They said the shopper was banned from all establishments running that system. So, even if the accused person is not accused of doing anything in that particular establishment, they are now capable of being globally banned. That should 100% be prohibited.
- krisoft 2y ago> unless there is a statutory requirement to the contrary I’m aware of that. What I’m proposing is that we should make that a statutory requirement. If you are operating a camera system with automatic face detection it must be operated in a certain manner.