Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are the kinds who people who "shop" and attend "malls" the sorts of people we should be protecting?
https://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
Ooo this is very important!
Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
51–60 of 184 posts
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#52I 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…
This has to stop.
Crime? True.
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#53I 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?
[deleted]
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#54If this is all privately held data that can't be accessed without a warrant... why not? Just so I'm clear, the argument against this is: - Merchants should be able to hire humans that sit around looking at camera screens all day trying to find shopping patterns, shoplifters, etc. - Any attempt to automate this tedious task is dystopian and evil ?
A piece of data on its own is usually pretty harmless, a gigantic database that is organized, categorized, and distributed, is potentially very harmful. And it's a smooth gradient between them.
An example of data that is harmless on its own but harmful at scale is license plate reading. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-yo... a few points tells you that a person is in a city, a few more tells you where they live, a few more tells you where they work, a few more tells you where the shop, a few more tells you who their friends are, who their associates are, if they're seeing someone on the side, if their going to any gatherings, if they tend to frequent red light districts... ect.
In this way, as data is aggregated, the picture of a given person slides from blurry to clear. And a clear picture of someone is an invasive and dangerous picture of someone.
As a result, aggregation of "public" data like this is something privacy advocates generally resist. It's not that there's is some line that's been crossed.
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#55[deleted]
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of question is this? Are you intending to imply that some people are less deserving of privacy purely based on if they shop at malls?
More a sarcastic expression of my disdain for the North American Shopping Mall and those who call her home.
Fair enough. Rampant consumerism is a threat to our survival as a species. I personally find it revolting.
How people can derive pleasure buying low-quality clothes and widgets made by people in horrible conditions is beyond me. Never mind the impact on our environment.
I have a lot of compassion for addicts. I used to be an opiate addict. It's all the same phenomenon; trying to fill an internal void with something external.
I suspect that the majority here, however, do not feel the same way. I've seen too many posts where folks describe their love of amazon with a fervour best described as religious.
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#57I 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…
> You should not have any expectation of privacy once you are outside the confines of your house.
My first reaction was “what a sad dystopian position.” But then I thought further and while I agree in general, I think “privacy” needs a bit more nuance to it. If you are outside should it be against the law to have a camera that films you for security? No I don’t think so. There is a reasonable expectation that business and home owners will have security cameras to protect their property. But in the case of filming you in order to monetize your likeness and shopping habits, I think this goes a step too far, and becomes broadly unacceptable as too intrusive. Should I only be able to retain my information (likeness, shopping habits) by hiding in my home? That’s the dystopian part.
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#58>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.
About five years ago there was a decal on the glass beside the entrance to the Stanford Shopping Center Neiman Marcus notifying customers that they were tracked by their phones.
I wonder if they stopped in response to complaints, or decided the notification was unnecessary. At the time, I figured their system judged me for browsing $800 jeans and not making a purchase.
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#59I 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?
Now what if they decide to link that data up with driver license photos or social media data to de-anonymize as many people as they can. Would you still say there's no actual harm here?
I would argue that if the data is stored, it is only a matter of time before it becomes monetized in the manner you are mentioning. There has to be a firewall to prevent that step being taken. Mindlessly filming for future review in the event of a security issue is one thing. Intelligently analyzing the frames for identification purposes is where the feeling of “my privacy has been invaded, or could easily be in the future via storage of my likeness” comes from.
I don’t see this as a victimless act - just that the victimization is uncertain at present but almost 100% certain to occur the more this behaviour occurs.
Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now what if they decide to link that data up with driver license photos or social media data to de-anonymize as many people as they can. Would you still say there's no actual harm here?
I would argue that if the data is stored, it is only a matter of time before it becomes monetized in the manner you are mentioning. There has to be a firewall to prevent that step being taken. Mindlessly filming for future review in the event of a security issue is one thing. Intelligently analyzing the frames for identification purposes is where the feeling of “my privacy has been invaded, or could easily be in the…
They know you walked from Baby Gap to the food court, bought a pretzel, then left via the doors by California Pizza Kitchen. If you sue the mall, the court may agree your privacy has been violated and now are asking you to come up with a dollar figure for the harm done. How do you do that?