5 ms·
The green box around his face in the image is evidence that it detected a face, but not that it had collected or stored identifying biometrics. It would be lega
by delichon 1y ago
The green box around his face in the image is evidence that it detected a face, but not that it had collected or stored identifying biometrics. It would be legal for a POS device to detect any face, e.g. to help decide when to reset for the next customer. But as I understand it, this would usually be enough to trigger discovery, where he could learn the necessary technical details.
Even if this suit fails, the store is vulnerable to continuous repeats by other parties. Written consent from each customer is the only viable protection. So the BIPA law may mean that face detection, not just recognition, is not practical in Illinois.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- m463 1y agoIt still "recognizes a face" and shows this. Legal terms do not have to be scientific or engineering terms.
- mlyle 1y agoDetecting a face is not the same as recognizing a face in either engineering parlance or typical usage. If I don't determine this is a face that I've seen before, I've not recognized the face (maybe I have recognized that there is a face there). To recognize entails re-cognizing: knowing again what was previously known. Simply noticing that something is a face does not satisfy that; it is only detecting. Without linking it to prior knowledge, recognition hasn’t occurred.
- m463 1y agobut just think about other things. Like the google 'incognito' mode that wasn't private browsing, and google was found guilty. engineers might say "of course it's not private" but the court opinion differed. common sense to a normal person might not match engineer thinking.
- conductr 1y agoIs this coming from legal definitions? Because, one of the valid dictionary definitions of "recognition" is simply acknowledging something exists. No prior knowledge needed for that, other than the generic training the facial detection software has undergone.
- mannykannot 1y agoThis is not how dictionaries work. When multiple definitions are given, it does not follow - and in many cases, it is not even possible - that they are all applicable in any context. Ignoring context leads to things like "English as She is Spoke" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke Decent dictionaries give some guidance as to the contexts in which each each definition is applicable, but for thoroughness you probably cannot beat the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. The relevant definition here is neither legal nor technical, but from common usage, where recognizing a face, if not qualified, is taken to mean recognizing an individual by their face, not recognizing that you are seeing a face.
- conductr 1y agoThe courts may disagree. That's why I'm curious if the comment was from a legal context. If we had prior case law of them distinguishing one definition in favor of another, I'd feel more certain about all the assertations being made. If there are no cases, then the courts could interpret however they want in conflict of your entire comment.
- mannykannot 1y ago> ...the courts could interpret however they want in conflict of your entire comment. Courts sometimes adopt tendentious, cotroversial or disputed definitions in their rulings, and law-makers sometimes (and more frequently) do so when writing the law, but that in no way invalidates what I have written, which is about how to use a dictionary.
- margalabargala 1y ago
- npteljes 1y agoThe lawsuit alleges that they also collect the facial details, of which the green rectangle is no evidence. But maybe they'll look into it and find that this is indeed the case.
- MagicMoonlight 1y agoIf it's not clearly defined then it would be subject to debate in court, and you could admit expert evidence of what facial recognition is to define it
- andy_xor_andrew 1y agoI was wondering this as well. The green box could simply indicate it detected a face, using something like YOLO, or even a simpler technique like some point-and-shoot cameras use to decide where to focus (on faces, obviously).
- advisedwang 1y agoHow does one find out whether Home Depot is merely detecting faces or storing biometrics? Answer: File a lawsuit and use discovery to find out.
- horseradish7k 1y agothis means you're guilty until proven otherwise, does it not?
- justsid 1y agoI'm pretty sure just like free speech, innocent until proven guilty is for the government/court, not a random person on the street. If you want to assume someone is guilty of something you are allowed to do so and you can sue too. Otherwise the prosecution would have to go to jail every time the defense wins.
- advisedwang 1y agoNo, it means courts can be used to find out if someone is guilty.