7-Eleven Breached Customer Privacy By Collecting Facial Imagery Without Consent (zdnet.com) 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: In Australia, the country's information commissioner has found that 7-Eleven breached customers' privacy by collecting their sensitive biometric information without adequate notice or consent. From June 2020 to August 2021, 7-Eleven conducted surveys that required customers to fill out information on tablets with built-in cameras. These tablets, which were installed in 700 stores, captured customers' facial images at two points during the survey-taking process -- when the individual first engaged with the tablet, and after they completed the survey. After becoming aware of this activity in July last year, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) commended an investigation into 7-Eleven's survey.
During the investigation [PDF], the OAIC found 7-Eleven stored the facial images on tablets for around 20 seconds before uploading them to a secure server hosted in Australia within the Microsoft Azure infrastructure. The facial images were then retained on the server, as an algorithmic representation, for seven days to allow 7-Eleven to identify and correct any issues, and reprocess survey responses, the convenience store giant claimed. The facial images were uploaded to the server as algorithmic representations, or "faceprints," that were then compared with other faceprints to exclude responses that 7-Eleven believed may not be genuine. 7-Eleven also used the personal information to understand the demographic profile of customers who completed the survey, the OAIC said.
7-Eleven claimed it received consent from customers who participated in the survey as it provided a notice on its website stating that 7-Eleven may collect photographic or biometric information from users. The survey resided on 7-Eleven's website. As at March 2021, approximately 1.6 million survey responses had been completed. In Australia, an organization is prohibited from collecting sensitive information about an individual unless consent is provided. [...] 7-Eleven [has been ordered] to cease collecting facial images and faceprints as part of the customer feedback mechanism. 7-Eleven has also been ordered to destroy all the faceprints it collected.
During the investigation [PDF], the OAIC found 7-Eleven stored the facial images on tablets for around 20 seconds before uploading them to a secure server hosted in Australia within the Microsoft Azure infrastructure. The facial images were then retained on the server, as an algorithmic representation, for seven days to allow 7-Eleven to identify and correct any issues, and reprocess survey responses, the convenience store giant claimed. The facial images were uploaded to the server as algorithmic representations, or "faceprints," that were then compared with other faceprints to exclude responses that 7-Eleven believed may not be genuine. 7-Eleven also used the personal information to understand the demographic profile of customers who completed the survey, the OAIC said.
7-Eleven claimed it received consent from customers who participated in the survey as it provided a notice on its website stating that 7-Eleven may collect photographic or biometric information from users. The survey resided on 7-Eleven's website. As at March 2021, approximately 1.6 million survey responses had been completed. In Australia, an organization is prohibited from collecting sensitive information about an individual unless consent is provided. [...] 7-Eleven [has been ordered] to cease collecting facial images and faceprints as part of the customer feedback mechanism. 7-Eleven has also been ordered to destroy all the faceprints it collected.
Funny (Score:1)
"...before uploading them to a secure server hosted in Australia within the Microsoft Azure infrastructure."
Sure delete it now... (Score:2)
After the facial recognition program has already been trained.
Re: (Score:2)
After the facial recognition program has already been trained.
FR works by training a NN to hash a photo of a face to a "faceprint", keeping scale and rotation invariant information that distinguishes an individual.
Once the system is trained, it compares the DB of stored faceprints to a new photo to identify the individual.
In this case, the Australian government has ordered 7-11 to delete all the stored faceprints, so there is nothing to compare against.
Somebody needs to go to jail for this (Score:1)
Maybe even several people. And I'm talking hard time, not an Australian equivalent of Club Fed. The only thing that's going to stop corporations with bottomless pockets from pulling this kind of shit is to throw highly-placed asses in prison for no less than 5 years.
When conscience is entirely absent, the ONLY thing that may prevent corporate psychopaths and sociopaths from abusing their power and privilege is fear. The threat of serious jail time spent with inmates convicted of violent crimes, may be the o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia, the Supreme court is State based (we have 6 states so six Supreme courts).
The High court is the national court who lays down what federal law means.
Our information commissioner is federal, just like the High court.
So, when push comes to shove - Federal law wins.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm talking hard time, not an Australian equivalent of Club Fed.
Prisons are for violent people who need to be physically separated from civilized society.
They are not for people who ran algorithms on photographs in a process that would have been legal in most jurisdictions. Most likely, they didn't even realize what they were doing was illegal, and no one was harmed.
Re: (Score:3)
By your logic, Al Capone should have been in a minimum security prison. The only thing he was convicted of was tax fraud.
Why is it illegal when a computer does it? (Score:3)
But not when a person does it?
If it's simply a matter of scale, at what point does it become wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I ,mean it is legal for a person to see something and happen to remember what they are seeing.
As for the difference being the creation of a document, that is begging the question. The creation of a document is an artifact of computer storage. Again, it is making something illegal simply because it happens to be done by computer.
Also, people can be kidnapped, interrogated, drugged to comply.
And what does that mean for future neural wetware tech?
Re: (Score:2)
"The creation of a document is an artifact of computer storage" ??
People have been creating documents for thousands of years, for example, the Rosetta Stone, from 196BC and there are many more examples that pre-date electric (valves, magnetic memory) or electronic computers.
For future neural wetware tech, I suggest you watch Max Headroom, read William Gibson and other 80's (and earlier/later) cyberpunk authors as they seem to offer hints as to what is coming, based on past predictions coming true (ish...)
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is storage. If you see me at the 7-11, I can't prevent you from remembering it. If my picture is taken and stored in a database, anyone can view that da
Re: (Score:2)
Perish the notion that some human beings might have good memories then. Human memory and computer memory are the same in the sense that they both retain data over time.
While human memory is obviously not as fast or necessarily consistent as a computer, there is no logical reason I can think of that something that happens to perform a task more reliably or usefully than something else should be illegal apparently simply because it does so more reliably.
Because in fact, that's really what I see these so
Starbucks is doing it too (Score:2)
Consequences (Score:2)
Dem ratz! Dey tuk a doitee stinkin' picher of my mug! Ain't neva gonna get anudda slurpee!
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points I'm not sure if I'd mod this up.... or down...
There's no privacy expectation in public (Score:2)
Never was, never will.
GradeMiners (Score:1)
Companies stealing individual data huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just lie to them. Or you can give them my number, it's 362436-Hey!
Pick up the phone, I'm always home
Also, I could use the frequent buyer points
Another unexpected benefit of quitting cigarettes (Score:2)
I haven't had to step foot inside one of those places since I quit years ago
It was a weekly pilgrimage for a number of years though.