Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 184 posts

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#101

Post by mynegation »

lhorie wrote: post #91
black_puppydog wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but if you're taking their argument at face value that decals might be the way to go here and everything would be fine if only they were there, then they've basically won. Don't get side tracked.

My take is that the claim that "shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals" fails on multiple levels: whether said decals were actually there, whether they would be capable of capturing nuances of scope if they were (e.g. there's different expectations between a mall entrance, the Shoppers entrance and the LCBO entrance), whether people noticed the alleged decals if they were there, whether they could be…

For non-Canadians here: Shoppers is pharmacies and LCBO is provincially-controlled liquor store that has near monopoly on hard liquor sales.

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#102

Post by imgabe »

blato wrote: post #99
ab_testing wrote: post #18

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…

This "_you should not have any expectations of privacy in public_" argument dates back when there was no facial recognition. The idea was people can see you in the street, maybe exceptionally a wierdo would take a photo of you but nobody could find your identity back from that photo. In case of a crime in the street the police could exceptionally access surveillance cameras to investigate. That's it. This is what "no…

> Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person.

How does a picture grant total control? Let's say I have a picture of you right now. How do I use that picture to either force you to do something against your will, or prevent you from doing something?

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#103

Post by mynegation »

vel0city wrote: post #10
strawberrypuree wrote: post #2

>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…

It is one thing to have cameras for security and store records for a limited amount of time for police investigation and what not. But applying facial recognition, biometric analysis, and storing it indefinitely is whole another ballgame.

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#104

Post by holidayacct »

I don't have a problem with this. Most ppl don't know this but there are ppl who make a living harassing other ppl in malls or abusing associative learning to give ppl positive or negative feelings about where they are shopping. They use actual "models" if you want to call it that to influence your decision making everywhere you go. It's actually highly targeted and dangerously accurate.

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#105

Post by oehpr »

stickfigure wrote: post #100
oehpr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you use a credit card? Why are you so upset about this dataset but not that dataset? Honest question.

Yes. And why do you think I'm not upset about that dataset?

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#106

Post by voisin »

criddell wrote: post #60
voisin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This argument assumes the court is looking only for compensatory damages whereas punitive damages are likely more applicable in an invasion of privacy case like this. No direct damages but the social implications demand a “whack on the nose” via punitive damages.

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#107

Post by blato »

umvi wrote: post #15

If 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 ?

"Merchants should be able to hire humans that sit around looking at camera screens all day trying to find shopping patterns, shoplifters, etc."

There is no identification part in what you describe. Generic stats (how many person in the queue, etc.) are okay.

The issue is not facial detection but facial recognition.

They stored model of faces associated with data which mean they could point a camera at anyone in the street anywhere in the world and find back what is the data associated with that person.

Hiring humans would not result in creating and storing models of faces

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#108

Post by koolba »

mynegation wrote: post #101
lhorie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is that the claim that "shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals" fails on multiple levels: whether said decals were actually there, whether they would be capable of capturing nuances of scope if they were (e.g. there's different expectations between a mall entrance, the Shoppers entrance and the LCBO entrance), whether people noticed the alleged decals if they were there, whether they could be…

For non-Canadians here: Shoppers is pharmacies and LCBO is provincially-controlled liquor store that has near monopoly on hard liquor sales.

“Near monopoly”? Outside of duty free, where else can you buy booze (not beer) besides the LCBO?

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#109

Post by blato »

fraserharris wrote: post #22

> Cadillac Fairview said the images taken by camera were briefly analyzed then deleted — but investigators found that the sensitive biometric information generated from the images was being stored in a centralized database by a third party. 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 a…

The pictures are not what matter, what matters is the "face features data" association.

The harm ? With that data, any camera in the world pointed at you can find what you did in that store.

Re: Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers

#110

Post by kortilla »

koolba wrote: post #108
mynegation wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For non-Canadians here: Shoppers is pharmacies and LCBO is provincially-controlled liquor store that has near monopoly on hard liquor sales.

“Near monopoly”? Outside of duty free, where else can you buy booze (not beer) besides the LCBO?

A bar
Post reply on HN