21–30 of 184 posts
I think the courts have ruled that it is perfectly legal to record somebody outside of their home as that is considered public spaces. Many cities are now moving to embed cameras in street lights to deter and record crimes. I think that it is safe to assume that if you are outside, you are being recorded, either by a check point camera , a store’s security camera , streetlight camera or even your neighbor’s ring devi…
The images are not being persisted, just the metadata about the individual. Who is being harmed by this? If a person with a clipboard collecting this information without telling anyone, is there any outrage?
I think the courts have ruled that it is perfectly legal to record somebody outside of their home as that is considered public spaces. Many cities are now moving to embed cameras in street lights to deter and record crimes. I think that it is safe to assume that if you are outside, you are being recorded, either by a check point camera , a store’s security camera , streetlight camera or even your neighbor’s ring devi…
"Shoppers had no reason to expect their image was being collected by an inconspicuous camera, or that it would be used, with facial recognition technology, for analysis," said federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien in a statement.
My default is the opposite, I expect I'm being tracked all the time and that my image, cell signal, and whatever else is being used to try and sell me stuff I don't need.
>The company also argued shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals it had placed on shopping mall entry doors that referred to Cadillac Fairview's privacy policy. Do what now? Physical spaces have privacy policies? We're really sleepwalking into a dystopia. If you don't like the privacy policy of your shopping mall, you're free to shop... online, where they get even more behavioral data on you. Yikes.
It’s crazy that their lawyers think that merely referring to a privacy policy via a decal on the door is adequate acceptance of this kind of intrusion. I thought the laws required explicit acceptance online, via a check box on sign up, along with emailed updates when the policy changes. Merely walking through a door cannot possibly be construed to be explicit acceptance.
Very abstractly, legal precedent exists for the general implementation. Texas has what's called "the 30.07 sign" codified in the penal code (30.06 concealed, 30.07 open carry)[1] which prohibits firearm carry on that property with nothing more than a proper/legal sign. The responsibility lies on the entrant to notice and comply with the sign prior to entering the establishment, no explicit acknowledgement is required by that place of business for it to be enforced.
(not saying I agree with what's going on here, only that I can see lawyers using laws like this to support the action in the face of no laws saying it can't be done like this - a judge may throw the argument out, but it could be made as a good faith argument? My mind is thinking about how in the 90s "shrink wrap acceptance" was just a given - you opened he box so you accepted the license, but in 2020 many new laws have been developed to curtail that design and now require explicit acceptance by the end-user.)
[1] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm
I don’t see the actual harm here. Malls have operated security cameras for decades. These people added a facial recognition system to generate population statistics (age, gender) and track anonymous individuals as they move around the mall. So what? Who was harmed? Who could be harmed?
If they were then taking the data and finding those people through Ring or youtube videos, sharing the pictures of people with companies to learn the earning power or tax history of a person, or using pictures of people and the store they visit to sell to Amazon or Facebook, then it would seem a step too far.
There is no expectation of privacy in public places in the US. Not sure of Canada has the same norm. Now that said just because you can collect data does not mean should should--there's a wide range for good and evil here.
>The company also argued shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals it had placed on shopping mall entry doors that referred to Cadillac Fairview's privacy policy. Do what now? Physical spaces have privacy policies? We're really sleepwalking into a dystopia. If you don't like the privacy policy of your shopping mall, you're free to shop... online, where they get even more behavioral data on you. Yikes.
In Canada, do you even really have a right to privacy when in public spaces like a shopping mall? Is there even a legal expectation that there aren't cameras doing this kind of thing all the time? In most places in the US I know there isn't a right to privacy within a public space. If I as a shop owner put up security cameras in this same fashion in most of the US this wouldn't be against the law. There's no law prev…