Home Depot and Lowe's Accused of Scanning Millions of Customers Faces (dailymail.co.uk) 36
JustAnotherOldGuy tipped us off to this story. The Daily Mail reports:
Home Depot and Lowe's are secretly using facial recognition technology to track customer movement in their stores, violating privacy laws in Illinois, plaintiffs in two class action lawsuits say.
The plaintiffs, who are Illinois residents, allege the two big box retailers are using the technology without properly notifying customers or seeking their consent, as required by state law... The collection of the biometric data requires written notification, a statement of purpose for the collection of that data and duration for which it will be kept, and written consent from the individuals from which the data is being collected, the lawsuits both state. Neither store, according to both lawsuits, met the benchmarks set in the Illinois law, also know as BIPA and which was enacted in 2008. "Plaintiffs and the class members did not consent to the disclosure or dissemination of their biometric identifiers," say both of the class actions.
No evidence is provided for the allegations, although the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed last year that Lowe's was using facial recognition, citing mentions in its 2018 privacy policy. However, IPVM, a camera surveillance industry news site, noted that the privacy policy this year no longer has references to the technology... Walmart also was testing the technology, according to the ACLU, and Madison Square Garden was considering using it. The civil rights organization points out on its website that "stores have a strong financial incentive to collect as much information about their customers as they can get. And we do know that when it comes to this kind of cutting-edge technology, which is taking the human race to places it's never been before, the public has a right to know what stores are doing with it, if anything, so they can vote with their feet if they don't like it."
The plaintiffs, who are Illinois residents, allege the two big box retailers are using the technology without properly notifying customers or seeking their consent, as required by state law... The collection of the biometric data requires written notification, a statement of purpose for the collection of that data and duration for which it will be kept, and written consent from the individuals from which the data is being collected, the lawsuits both state. Neither store, according to both lawsuits, met the benchmarks set in the Illinois law, also know as BIPA and which was enacted in 2008. "Plaintiffs and the class members did not consent to the disclosure or dissemination of their biometric identifiers," say both of the class actions.
No evidence is provided for the allegations, although the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed last year that Lowe's was using facial recognition, citing mentions in its 2018 privacy policy. However, IPVM, a camera surveillance industry news site, noted that the privacy policy this year no longer has references to the technology... Walmart also was testing the technology, according to the ACLU, and Madison Square Garden was considering using it. The civil rights organization points out on its website that "stores have a strong financial incentive to collect as much information about their customers as they can get. And we do know that when it comes to this kind of cutting-edge technology, which is taking the human race to places it's never been before, the public has a right to know what stores are doing with it, if anything, so they can vote with their feet if they don't like it."
Security Cameras (Score:1)
OMG!!
They used security cameras.
They's steelin our SOULS!!!
Re: (Score:2)
As I described in the article, cameras that track you specifically across all of that retailer's stores. Although this is the Daily Fail, so it maay be hyperbole.
On the plus side, these are companies I can actually meaningfully boycott. I buy softener salt from them and am in the market for a new stove.
Re: (Score:1)
I typoed and implied I wrote the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you share more details?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How would you like being banned from a store you'd never even been to because you happen to look like someone who was a thief or suspected of being a thief?
I recall back when stores used to post photographs of those caught shoplifting on the wall behind the cash register, along with (enlarged) photocopys of bad checks, so that staff could easily recognize known bad actors. What you are describing is not new.
That is not to say that your point is invalid. I'm just saying that using technology (adding "with a computer" or "on the internet" to a concept) doesn't change the underlying activity.
Plus unique re-identifiability! (Score:2)
Your attempt at ridiculing this, only shows your own moronoty.
There is a difference between ... (best bad case) a closed cirquit camera system recording the store and overwriting it after n hours/days, and ... (worst bad case) a neural-network-enhanced unique feature recognition system tracking your every breath and motion inside the store, permanently uploading it to a "cloud" with a security just as shady as the provider who sells it off to his criminal buddies so they can both harass you (even 30 years l
s/moronoty/moronity/ (Score:1)
INB4 "Your entire comment is invalid because of this typo!âoe. ;)
Amazin Girlfriend (Score:2)
Exampe: 30 years later, your current )otherwise amazing) girlfriend gets a video. She watches it, and then tells you "{...} I cannot have a relationship with a cheater. You disgust me. Goodbye."
If your *amazing* girlfriend is ready to throw away 30 years worth of a shared life just for some random video she got in here inbox, *you* have to reconsider a bit what qualifies *amazing* to you.
(You shouldn't stop at "looks cute, great sex", you should also add "has a brain" and "can wait pro/cons" on the list)
others (Score:2)
Not buying it. (Score:2)
The cost/benefit ratio for a home depot to pay for such a system simply doesn't seem to be there to me. I don't really see the benefit. The vast majority of people that go there pay by charge, that is all the info they need to track peoples shopping habits
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they pay for it? You really don't see Amazon or another company offering to tap into CCTV streams for testing, for the benefit of both companies?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You are assuming tracking at the register. Facial recognition allows tracking everywhere, even outside the store. So in 2 years Lowes makes a deal with McDonalds. They agree to share their face database, Face-Base (tm), in exchange you see ads when you leave either store for things they extrapolate you might want. Mcdonalds makes a deal with the state of Wisconsin with their traffic cameras. And so on. Before you know it you are being tracked outside and personal data is being tracked and monitored
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to the other reasons - tracking at the register only tells them what you bought, not what you considered buying and then walked away from. Which helps them redesign stores to reduce the chance that your better judgement will kick in and hurt their bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, charge-card receipts are all they need to track consumers. Phone numbers help immensely.
But why track people around inside of the stores? They used to do it with wifi, following you as your phone tried to connect to dummy wifi hosts sprinkled throughout the store (Nordstrom's got caught). It's not new, but why?
Well, the marketers love to 'study' consumer patterns and pretend that it is scientific research, with repeatable outcomes. But it's softer than the softest of the soft sciences. They like to th
Camera's and AI. (Score:3)
As I read this, it makes me wonder. When I go to my local Home Depot there are cameras in a few of the isles where they have lots of expensive small items.
These cameras ding at me when I walk past them. The red light comes on. It has a screen that shows what I assume is the video it's "seeing." I see video of myself as I walk past it. It seems clear to me in my mind that I am being recorded.
What never crossed my mind is that they are recording and saving me for later processing. I thought what I was doing was mundane. I did not know that I was sharing anything for the further progression of the store. I figured that someone was going to look for the thief later in the day and that it wasn't going to be me.
The databases of videos of people grabbing items are big money to companies like Amazon and Google, Alibaba, etc.
I used to be the customer. Now I'm the product. They now record me to train their AI. I feel like I'm being asked to believe that recording me is good for the greater good. Maybe it is when AI will be running the world. Maybe examples of altruism will benefit us.
My worry is what happens when I need bread when I'm the one that is hungry and the world is fed by robots that aren't hungry?
--
Any decision I make is the biggest decision of my life. -- Carmelo Anthony
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
Well said, I like it a lot.
My worry is what happens when I need bread when I'm the one that is hungry and the world is fed by robots that aren't hungry
I fear this scenario may be an echo of the income disparity we see today.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me assure you that the so-called 'robots' have no capacity to 'think'. So-called 'AI' is just a marketing term for some rather limited, and frankly rather shitty, software. There's no 'personality' inside that, nothing that 'thinks' or makes 'judgements' like humans do. It processes information, that's all. Who you have to worry about in your theoretical scenario is the humans w
No evidence is provided for the allegations (Score:1)
But the lawyers are being paid, so it's all good.
Allegations, no evidence... Boy does that suck! And so typical these days, trying to change history. How does it get past a judge? Rhetorical question...
Re: (Score:2)
License Place Scanners DO NOT detect drivers who have outstanding tickets but they detect cars that were being driven when a traffic ticket was issued. Unless those ANPR devices also have facial recognition cameras built into them. In the USA, isn't it the vehicle that is insured and not where a driver is insured to drive a particular car.
Illinois (Score:2)
Can't they just ship the security video to China then do the analysis in china.
rotted brain asshole (Score:2)
ICE ICE BABY (Score:1)
Subtle but important typo: "... Customers' Faces"! (Score:1)
Multiple customers; their faces.
You could also go for "Millions of Customer's Faces". But that only works for a politician aka lobbyist aka talking head aka TV "expert" aka PR person.
Re: (Score:2)
Such laws are invalid as far as facial recognition (Score:2)
That is the crux of the issue. First of all stores and been tracking their customers since there have been stores. They did it using their brains.
Next we have the principle that what is in public view is not private. It's like trade secrets... you can't go to court complaining someone stole your secret recipe when your the one that told them.... everyone is simply going to call you an idiot.
There should be laws to protect peoples private data but such laws need to be practical. It should protect things like
worked at HD for 5+ years (Score:2)
Those cameras on the aisl