4 ms·
First paragraphs pretty clearly read to me like the issue isn’t “processing it,” it’s the indiscriminate filming of everybody who enters the store without conse
by Forgeties79 1y ago
First paragraphs pretty clearly read to me like the issue isn’t “processing it,” it’s the indiscriminate filming of everybody who enters the store without consent that’s the problem.
- llm_nerd 1y agoEveryone who enters almost any store is "filmed" with their implicit consent. Cameras are everywhere, and certainly are everywhere in every Australian court as well. The root comment is precisely right. Deriving data from filmed content -- the illusory private biometric data that we are leaving everywhere, constantly -- is what the purported transgression was.
- Forgeties79 1y agoVery well could be that I am misreading it.
- mrits 1y agoIs this from the 90s? Who doesn't expect to be recorded when entering a retail chain? How the hell does the government have the right to decide what this private company can do on their private land? If you enter onto someone else's property you should play by their rules.
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago>Who doesn't expect to be recorded when entering a retail chain? Me. Unless it's clearly stated outside. It's why I wear a covid mask when shopping.
- mx7zysuj4xew 1y agoWearing a mask alone isn't sufficient anymore. At best it degrades overall recognition but doesn't fully prevent it
- Eisenstein 1y agoThat's why I wear Groucho glasses.
- nottorp 1y agoBusiness opportunity: sell covid masks with patterns designed to thwart facial recognition on them. Why are they covid masks anyway? Medical personnel wears them during surgery, and there were those photos of ... some asian people i think ... wearing them outdoors to protect themselves from air pollution in their city too.
- pc86 1y agoBecause this person never knew they existed until covid and now wearing it has become a core part of their identity.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoPeople here might be interested in Zennioptical's ID Guard technology, if they wear glasses. Evidently it's not perfect, but it does at least partially work: https://youtu.be/HOBdJ6nU03o?si=E_a6rMPAz5AOwytm https://youtu.be/HOBdJ6nU03o?si=E_a6rMPAz5AOwytm
- mrits 1y agoSo to be clear, you wear a mask even though you don't expect to be recorded?
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago> How the hell does the government have the right to decide what this private company can do on their private land? Because the world is bigger than just the wishes of private businesses. I don't think there is anywhere on this planet where you as a private business can do literally whatever you want, there are always regulations about what you can and cannot do. The first thing is usually "zoning" as one example, so regardless if you own the land, if it isn't zoned for industrial/commercial usage, then you cannot use it for industrial/commercial usage. What libertarian utopia do you live in that would allow land owners to do whatever they want?
- mrits 1y agoWe are talking about doing a lawful act, not whatever you want. It isn't illegal to record.
- fwip 1y agoThe court didn't find that it was unlawful to record.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y agoThe article is literally about that specific thing being illegal, which is exactly what parent is complaining about?
- nl 1y agoIn Australia we expect companies to follow the rule of law, which encodes the expectations of society. The Australian Privacy Act falls well short of European standards, but it does encode some rights for people that businesses must abide by.
- pc86 1y agoAnd filming people who walk into a private store is not a violation of any Australian law.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mrits 1y agoIn the US we expect the government to respect private property
- Forgeties79 1y agoUnfortunately often at the expense of virtually every consideration.
- mrits 1y agohyperbolic
- Forgeties79 1y agoDismissive
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThere are obviously things you can't do on your private property though.
- IanCal 1y ago> How the hell does the government have the right to decide what this private company can do on their private land? Unless you think a grocery store should be allowed to grab you and sell your organs then you agree that this private organisation should be subject to some limitations about what it can do on its own land. The question is then where the line should be between its interests and the interests of those who go on the land. You can be absolutist about this, that’s certainly a position, but it’s extremely far from mainstream.
- mrits 1y agoGrabbing and selling your organs is illegal. This isn't difficult to understand
- Forgeties79 1y agoEase off the gas man
- fwip 1y agoI agree, it's simple to understand. Running biometric capture & analysis on every customer is also illegal in Australia.
- mrits 1y agoTry to stick to the topic
- IanCal 1y agoExactly. There is a limit to what a private company can do on private land, set by "the government" (here it'd be parliament). You don't seem to be an absolutist about this, so we both agree that the government can and should tell private businesses what they can do on private land. Then the issue is only where the line should be not whether there should be a line at all.
- josefx 1y ago> How the hell does the government have the right to decide It generally owns more weapons than your average deluded shop owner.
- nl 1y agoSecurity filming is common in Australia and not outlawed by this ruling. It is specifically the non-discriminate use of facial recognition technology this ruling applies to. The specific difference is "sensitive information". General filming with manual review isn't considered to be collecting privacy sensitive information. Automatic facial recognition is. The blog post makes this point about how the law is applied: > Is this a technology of convenience - is it being used only because it’s cheaper, or as an alternative to employing staff to do a particular role, and are there other less privacy-intrusive means that could be reasonably used? https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/blog/is-there-a-place-for-facial-recognition-in-australian-society https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/blog/is-there-a-place-for-facia...
- omcnoe 1y agoI don't really understand their reasoning behind the "technology of convenience" point. Say I implement facial recognition anti-fraud via an army of super-recognizers sitting in an office, watching the camera feeds all day (collecting the sensitive information into their brains rather than into a computer system). It'd be more expensive and involve employing staff (both the "technology of convenience" criteria. From a consumer perspective the privacy impact is very similar, but somehow the privacy commissioner would interpret this differently? Maybe that is the point the privacy commissioner is trying to make, that collecting this information through an automated computer system is fundamentally different than collecting this information through an analog/human system. But I'm not sure the line is really so clear...
- onionisafruit 1y agoI don’t understand it either, but it’s just one thing she said she will consider. No idea how much of a factor it is.
- 83 1y agoIt's a false equivalence to equate humans (even "super-recognizers") with a computer when it comes to matching large quantities of faces with names/PII. At some point the numbers get big enough that you wouldn't be able to get the pictures of faces in front of the people who would recognize them fast enough.