111–120 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh I find online shopping even worse tbh.
So uhh, did you build the computer you used to post this comment from first principles? Do you grow all your own food from scratch? I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this disdain for people participating in the economy.
I think every so often I get the urge to make a comment that ultimate burns off a few Karma points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Looking at China it's pretty clear how having a model of peoples face with facial recognition has been key for their total control of the population
>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.
Physical spaces have privacy policies? I've seen TOSes on mall doors before. They've been white letters on clear glass at just about foot level written in letters about 1cm tall. They were usually about violence and guns and shoplifting being grounds to ejection and banning. The only people who ever see them is the decal printing company, the guy who installs them, and mice.
I'll take that one further! Every street that enters the city I live in, has a sign with text that you'll only be able to read if you park your car, get out, and walk up to it. I've lived here 5 years and I still don't know what the heck those signs say lol. My guess is it's something about parking enforcement? Sigh. It's completely absurd lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
People are being detained & tortured because they've been recognised on footage of public demonstrations. Looking at China it's pretty clear how having a model of peoples face with facial recognition has been key for their total control of the population
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals Indeed there's a huge glaring problem here: many of these malls have branded entrances (Shoppers Drug Mart, Best Buy, etc) through which a large portion of consumers walk into the mall, and these alleged decals are not present in those entrances. Here's an example [1]. Frankly I don't see said decals even in the non-branded entrances[2] They're going to have a…
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.
Taking the argument at face value is probably not the right conclusion [1]. The linked court case establishes what we would call in American law Informed Consent. If you can't read disclaimer at the door until you are in camera range, is that really informed consent? And if the disclaimer does not actually list the policy in question, but refers you to a website to read it, can it be considered sufficient? A quote from the ruling is relevant here - "The more onerous the exclusion clause the more explicit the notice must be". Now, this case was related to legal liabilities related to injury in a ski resort, but it's the closet thing I've found. I suspect a judge won't take long to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
[1] - https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca78/2020bc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 e…
You'd think as a former opiate addict you might have a little more understanding and less emotionally negative response to something as mundane as shopping. If you feel this way about people who got to malls, how should I feel about junkies shooting up in my alley?
A person needs a pair of pants. Maybe, they don't want to use Amazon, or online services. They go to a store. It's in a mall.
Now, they're idiots for some inane, bizarre, incomprehensible reason. Even the "cheap clothes" they use to keep themselves safe from the elements are worse, than the "cheap clothes" bought elsewhere, like from Amazon?!
What a weird thread.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are being detained & tortured because they've been recognised on footage of public demonstrations. Looking at China it's pretty clear how having a model of peoples face with facial recognition has been key for their total control of the population
This is a government problem, not a privacy problem. If your government is intent on detaining and torturing dissidents, then privacy laws aren't going to stop them. Who do you think makes and enforces the law? The solution to that is to change your government.
The NSA spies on its own citizens, and won't even tell congress how.
https://ca.reuters.com/article/ctech-us-usa-security-congres...
The CBP is buying location data on US citizens, tracking them without a warrant, country wide (not just at borders), and won't say why/how:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dems-call-for-cbp-location-data-in...
Police, the FBI, and more use stingrays without warrants. The NSA works extensively to destroy encryption, and even have back doors into products for full, unlimited, real-time breaking of encryption.
I could post endless stories about this. Different US agencies, different data, different purposes for that data.
Put them all together.
Now consider that some of these agencies are "fighting" with democratically elected officials. Refusing to comply with democratically elected senators, congressmen, officials. State officials have even less sway.
This data is quite simply too powerful to be in anyone's hands. Literally, too powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> In Canada, do you even really have a right to privacy when in public spaces like a shopping mall? Yes, you do, because while a shopping mall might be considered a "public space," it is private property owned by a private organization. In Canada the PIPEDA [1] covers this federally, though the law is written such that it is a backstop, and provinces are free to enact their own "substantially similar" (or stricter) l…
age, name, ID numbers, income, ethnic origin, or blood type;
opinions, evaluations, comments, social status, or disciplinary actions; and
employee files, credit records, loan records, medical records, existence of a dispute between a consumer and a merchant, intentions (for example, to acquire goods or services, or change jobs).