Amazon Sued For Not Telling New York Store Customers About Facial Recognition (cnbc.com) 29
Amazon did not alert its New York City customers that they were being monitored by facial recognition technology, a lawsuit filed Thursday alleges. CNBC reports: In a class-action suit, lawyers for Alfredo Perez said that the company failed to tell visitors to Amazon Go convenience stores that the technology was in use. Thanks to a 2021 law, New York is the only major American city to require businesses to post signs if they're tracking customers' biometric information, such as facial scans or fingerprints. [...] The lawsuit says that Amazon only recently put up signs informing New York customers of its use of facial recognition technology, more than a year after the disclosure law went into effect. "To make this 'Just Walk Out' technology possible, the Amazon Go stores constantly collect and use customers' biometric identifier information, including by scanning the palms of some customers to identify them and by applying computer vision, deep learning algorithms, and sensor fusion that measure the shape and size of each customer's body to identify customers, track where they move in the stores, and determine what they have purchased," says the lawsuit.
"It means that even a global tech giant can't ignore local privacy laws," Albert Cahn, project director, said in a text message. "As we wait for long overdue federal privacy laws, it shows there is so much local governments can do to protect their residents."
"It means that even a global tech giant can't ignore local privacy laws," Albert Cahn, project director, said in a text message. "As we wait for long overdue federal privacy laws, it shows there is so much local governments can do to protect their residents."
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd have assumed it would be self-explanatory that Amazon's automated stores use all kinds of technological wizardry to figure out who you are. But we live in a world where people apparently don't understand that coffee is hot, and that the obviously a rollercoaster theme park attraction is "a thrilling rollercoaster-type ride with sharp turns, sudden drops and stops.", unless there's a sign saying so.
Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. (Score:4, Insightful)
There was apparently a law saying they must inform people on what is their method for identification. It was not difficult for them to comply, they just neglected to. I'd join the complainers if I lived there, just to remind these companies the law also applies to them, and also to defend the interests of the many people who have no idea how technology work and would never have guessed what sort of magic was involved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could've easily been an oversight on Amazon's part. Like how in Florida you can't hold a liquor license if you host a drag queen Christmas show
The liquor license thing wasn't an oversight, they had been warned twice and did it anyway. And what went on in there definitely exceeded NC-17 movie ratings. There is a reason you don't mix alcohol, young kids, and sexual displays all in the same place
Re: (Score:3)
The liquor licence is a case law from 1947 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-ou... [nbcnews.com] . I agree one can overlook old court decisions, and nobody knows all case law in existence.
The Amazon face recognition case was Legislation recently enacted by the State of New York. It's gross negligence if Amazon is not organized with a legal department that pays attention to changes in State law affecting their business. Even mom and pop shop owners are supposed to pay attention to such changes.
Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. (Score:4, Insightful)
Like how in Florida you can't hold a liquor license if you host a drag queen Christmas show (Iâ(TM)m serious, Google it).
You left out that children were present during the show, which is required to make it a violation. Florida doesn't care if you limit adult entertainment to adults, but they're not the only US government with laws about exposing children to smut. Such laws are often constitutional [mtsu.edu]. From the US Department of Justice:
Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Drag shows aren't automatically smut, although they can be.
The ones people are mad kids saw were less smutty than things you can find on broadcast television
lolol piss off the cuckservatives get modded flame (Score:1)
GP comment modded up for bullshit
My comment modded down for facts
Welcome to the new Slashdot, Tovarisch, where if you don't suck cryptocurrency cock and fear everyone not 100% CISpectacular you're a third-class citizen
Re: (Score:2)
The ones people are mad kids saw were less smutty than things you can find on broadcast television
No, Broadcast television has standards that are enforced by the FCC (remember Janet Jackson and nipplegate? George Carlin's "Seven Words")
By holding their "event" in a facility that holds a Florida Liquor License and ignoring multiple warnings before the event, they brought this outcome on themselves. They wanted the fight, they got it, good for them - they can take the state liquor board to court and argue that there should be no limits on entertaining minors in a licensed facility and see if the community
Re: (Score:2)
The ones people are mad kids saw were less smutty than things you can find on broadcast television
No, Broadcast television has standards that are enforced by the FCC (remember Janet Jackson and nipplegate? George Carlin's "Seven Words")
Handwaving
By holding their "event" in a facility that holds a Florida Liquor License and ignoring multiple warnings before the event, they brought this outcome on themselves.
On one hand, that's a reasonable analysis of what happened. On the other hand, that law is a violation of their first amendment rights. You can't take away someone's right to free expression or free association because they have a liquor license. That conflicts directly with the highest law of the land, the constitution.
They wanted the fight, they got it, good for them - they can take the state liquor board to court and argue that there should be no limits on entertaining minors in a licensed facility and see if the community supports them.
And they can appeal to a higher court if it doesn't, because this is a constitutional issue. Unfortunately, that road eventually leads to the catholic court.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no First Amendment freedom of association right to allow minors into a bar. There's no First Amendment freedom of speech right to allow minors into an adult-oriented business or to hand them obscene pictures. The only problem here is that you don't understand what the Constitution actually allows and prohibits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But according to this [washingtonpost.com] WaPo article from the 2018 launch, "the company says it does not employ facial recognition."
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary:
Thanks to a 2021 law, New York is the only major American city to require businesses to post signs if they're tracking customers' biometric information, such as facial scans or fingerprints.
The law covers any biometric information - facial, fingerprints, etc.
How do New Yorkers think Amazon knew who to charge for the items purchased?
The law was passed in 2021, the store posted signage in 2022, and now someone is filing a class action lawsuit in 2023? This lawsuit will go nowhere in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a signage issue. If anyone simply alerted Amazon to the infraction, there would have been hastily printed signs inside the store to comply with the law - but apparently, instead of simply getting Amazon to comply with the law, there was a "need" to file a class-action lawsuit because it is more dramatic.
This is like a customer suing Amazon for not putting a wet floor sign out when someone spills their drink on the floor, instead of simply alerting the staff of the wet floor...
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, you have probably misunderstood the situation.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Some insights for you. Coffee isn't necessary hot, but more to what you're referring to, coffee shouldn't b
Re: (Score:2)
But we live in a world where people apparently don't understand that coffee is hot
I would highly recommend the documentary from 2011 called Hot Coffee [imdb.com]. Not trying to change your opinion, it is just a fascinating story with a lot more to it than made it in the news headlines.
No, it doesn't mean that (Score:4, Interesting)
It means that even a global tech giant can't ignore local privacy laws," Albert Cahn, project director, said in a text message.
Not only can Amazon ignore local privacy laws, it's almost a certainty that they will continue to do so. Any award in this suit will be a pittance to 'Zon - this kind of expense literally appears as line items in the budgets of all major corporations. It's just a cost of business. And it's not as though it's Amazon's money which pays the fines - it's customer money from small increases in prices across the board, and it's employee money from making them work under slightly-more-gruelling conditions.
I've said it more times than I would want to count - unless fines and law-suit awards are in the high 9 figures they just barely make the needles twitch on these companies' worry meters.
The public has to wake up to the fact - and start making their governments act accordingly - that corporations have to be made to hurt badly in order for them to behave as though they a social conscience. We're dealing with psychopaths here, and we need to put the boots to them hard in order to even get them to merely pay attention. As an example, since 2000 General Electric has paid almost 2 billion dollars in penalties [goodjobsfirst.org]. Yet they still keep offending. Now if they had paid 2 billion dollars per year for the last 23 years, it's possible - although just barely - that their behaviour might have been a little bit better.
Re: (Score:2)
The privacy ship sailed when retail stores covered every square inch of their property with security cameras, and retain the footage for God-knows-how-long. Whether you're recognized immediately by an algorithm or by a human watching the footage after the fact makes little difference.
Being concerned about privacy while out shopping nowadays is like complaining that your stateroom on the Titanic is too cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you're recognized immediately by an algorithm or by a human watching the footage after the fact makes little difference.
Of course it makes a difference. A human watching the video after a burglary might see you in the store but the information is not added to any database unless you happen to be in the store during the two minutes the robbery is happening.
Facial recognition adds you to a database that is stored and available for data mining later. Things that can be learned by data mining include how often I enter the store, what I purchase, what time of day do I shop, how much do I spend, is there another person constantl
Re: (Score:3)
Facial recognition adds you to a database that is stored and available for data mining later. Things that can be learned by data mining include how often I enter the store, what I purchase, what time of day do I shop, how much do I spend, is there another person constantly with me, etc.
With or without facial recognition, that's all the same information Amazon's stores are designed to collect in order to facilitate automatically charging your account anyway. Really, the issue here is that if you don't consent to the way the store operates, you probably shouldn't set foot through the door in the first place. If you truly are concerned with your name and shopping habits being stored away in a database, you'll have to shop elsewhere and with cash.
I already said it but it got modded into obl
Re: (Score:1)
You got modded down because of your "coffee is hot" trolling, which you then later tried to disguise by referring to Starfucks instead of McDogshit, thereby doubling down on bullshit. Nobody is impressed by disingenuous cowardice.
Re: (Score:2)
The law was passed in 2021, the store posted signage in 2022, and now someone is filing a class action lawsuit in 2023?
In other words, Amazon was complying with the law for over a year before the class action lawsuit was filed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only can Amazon ignore local privacy laws, it's almost a certainty that they will continue to do so.
In the case of this privacy law, they've already stopped doing so (at least according to the plaintiff). So that doesn't support your premise.
"The lawsuit says that Amazon only recently put up signs informing New York customers of its use of facial recognition technology"
Here in dystopian UK... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really think hitting children is the solution?