Mall real estate company collected 5M images of shoppers • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by imgabe » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 1:25 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #150

imgabe wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if the worry is about a corrupt and hostile government, I fail to see what making it illegal accomplishes. Who do you think the regulators are? Yes, regulation is great with a just and fair government. If the government can't be trusted, then neither can the regulations. If we can't trust the government, then we need to replace it with one we can trust.

This is not a binary thing. It is not "the government is corrupt, therefore all is pointless". Instead, there are scenarios such as: - the government is comprised of people, running different departments - those people seem to think they are doing things for the common good - courts determine otherwise, and point to laws passed by legislative bodies as validation - activity stops "Spy agencies", and "policing agencie…

> The entire purpose of law, is to protect "my stuff" from "that other guy". My life. My belongings. My health.

If someone sees you in public, does the fact that they see you belong to you or them?

This is important. If you see me, does your memory of seeing me belong to me? Can you own memories inside someone else's brain?

Personally, I think not.

To some extent, your appearance in a public place does not constitute "your stuff".

Yes, your health and safety should be protected. Someone seeing you in public is not, in and of itself, a threat to your health or safety.

If you go out in public, you must come to terms with the fact that other people can see you.

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

#172

Post by b112 » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #171

b112 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a binary thing. It is not "the government is corrupt, therefore all is pointless". Instead, there are scenarios such as: - the government is comprised of people, running different departments - those people seem to think they are doing things for the common good - courts determine otherwise, and point to laws passed by legislative bodies as validation - activity stops "Spy agencies", and "policing agencie…

> The entire purpose of law, is to protect "my stuff" from "that other guy". My life. My belongings. My health. If someone sees you in public, does the fact that they see you belong to you or them? This is important. If you see me, does your memory of seeing me belong to me? Can you own memories inside someone else's brain? Personally, I think not. To some extent, your appearance in a public place does not constitute…

Yet that's not what's happening.

What's happening is, effectively, stalking. Stalking laws exist, even if the person is following another in public.

There are limits, you see.

Further, as others have eluded to, this is not about "a person seeing another person". Instead, this is about:

- a non-entity, a device, 'watching' you - exporting that data from the locality it was taken in - storing that information forever, if desired - also scanning you directly, looking for RF signals

To claim that "a person seeing you walking down the street" is the same as this, is not valid.

For example, "stalking" entails following a person, where ever they go.

What else is all of this surveillance, if not 'following' a person where ever they go? And in most legal jurisdictions, this is a crime.

Try this same behaviour as a person? And individual? Follow a person where ever they go, take notes, never leave them alone? Bam! Stalking.

But because it's a corporation doing it, that's OK I suppose?

You keep trying to say that "a person seeing you in public" is the same as "mass surveillance being leveled against you".

It's not. Full stop.

So why not discuss this as it truly is? Please stop this conflation.

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

#173

Post by shadowprofile77 » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

buildbot wrote: post #136

koolba wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Doesn’t this vary by province? BC has quite a few non- bc liquor stores, at least in Vancouver.

Every single one of those private liquor stores buys its stock through the BC Liquor Distribution Branch of British Columbia, so yes, the monopoly is still very much there, just hidden behind a few facades. I suspect something similar is the case in other provinces too.

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

#174

Post by imgabe » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #172

imgabe wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire purpose of law, is to protect "my stuff" from "that other guy". My life. My belongings. My health. If someone sees you in public, does the fact that they see you belong to you or them? This is important. If you see me, does your memory of seeing me belong to me? Can you own memories inside someone else's brain? Personally, I think not. To some extent, your appearance in a public place does not constitute…

Yet that's not what's happening. What's happening is, effectively, stalking. Stalking laws exist, even if the person is following another in public. There are limits, you see. Further, as others have eluded to, this is not about "a person seeing another person". Instead, this is about: - a non-entity, a device, 'watching' you - exporting that data from the locality it was taken in - storing that information forever,…

Because it's not a single entity following you around from place to place. Each place is keeping it's own records.

If you go to Joe's house and Joe makes a note that you came to his house, then you go to Bob's house and Bob makes a note that you came to his house, nobody is stalking you. Each individual is keeping track of who visits them. That is not stalking.

Yes, maybe later on, the government or someone else could come along and ask to see each person's records of who visited them. But that is their information to share or not share. You went to their place! If someone comes into your place of business or residence, does the record of that person visiting you not belong at least partially to you? Are you not allowed to keep track of who enters your own property?

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

#175

Post by criddell » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 2:17 PM UTC

kapuasuite wrote: post #154

criddell wrote: post #27

Earlier 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?

To do what with, though? Use it to blackmail you? Use it to track you down and murder you? That’s harm - collecting and analyzing data is not.

Privacy is a human right according to the UN. Whenever your rights are violated you've been harmed.

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

#176

Post by hibbelig » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #148

hibbelig wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stopped a representation that allowed them to identify that the same person visited again. That’s an id number. They guessed age and gender.

By ID, gp likely means government id, not identification by face. I can recognise my neighbours, but that doesn't mean I have their personal information.

In Europe, data that can be used to identify a person is also protected. For example, IP address plus timestamp is protected. Because you could obtain customer information from the ISP.

That's how I understand things.

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

#177

Post by b112 » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #174

b112 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet that's not what's happening. What's happening is, effectively, stalking. Stalking laws exist, even if the person is following another in public. There are limits, you see. Further, as others have eluded to, this is not about "a person seeing another person". Instead, this is about: - a non-entity, a device, 'watching' you - exporting that data from the locality it was taken in - storing that information forever,…

Because it's not a single entity following you around from place to place. Each place is keeping it's own records. If you go to Joe's house and Joe makes a note that you came to his house, then you go to Bob's house and Bob makes a note that you came to his house, nobody is stalking you. Each individual is keeping track of who visits them. That is not stalking. Yes, maybe later on, the government or someone else coul…

Courts, laws, judges look at the end game. They often do not care about hand waving, distracting red-herring type logic.

This is how you get torrent sites taken down, even though they host absolutely nothing. Intent, you see, is key.

And what is the intent of all of this data collection? Is it to just randomly, happen-stance note someone in passing?

Or is it a dedicated, planned, targeted collection of data on individuals?

What is the purpose of the data collection? Hmm?

This is what counts.

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

#178

Post by oehpr » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

kapuasuite wrote: post #152

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…

You haven’t actually articulated any harm here - the “dangerous” actions that could potentially happen with the aid of aggregated data, like blackmail or stalking, are already illegal.

It feels a little onerous for me to lay out the a privacy advocates argument from first principles.

I'd presume if umvi had rejected the groundwork reasons for privacy, they would have made a comment more like:

"What bad thing are we asserting would happen if they created this data set? What demonstrable harm can you show from even an omnibus dataset? Let alone what this mall is creating?"

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

#179

Post by shoemakersteve » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #61

randylahey wrote: post #41

I could not be happier that wearing a mask is more or less societally acceptable now.

I was curious if the value of the facial recognition startups is at risk with masks becoming more prevalent. Wouldn't be surprised if they are lobbying against mask mandates and mask enforcement as their entire business model must be at risk.

I've read that gait recognition is even easier to implement and more accurate than facial recognition. People will find more and more innovative ways to invade our privacy.

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

#180

Post by shoemakersteve » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 8:38 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #174

b112 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet that's not what's happening. What's happening is, effectively, stalking. Stalking laws exist, even if the person is following another in public. There are limits, you see. Further, as others have eluded to, this is not about "a person seeing another person". Instead, this is about: - a non-entity, a device, 'watching' you - exporting that data from the locality it was taken in - storing that information forever,…

Because it's not a single entity following you around from place to place. Each place is keeping it's own records. If you go to Joe's house and Joe makes a note that you came to his house, then you go to Bob's house and Bob makes a note that you came to his house, nobody is stalking you. Each individual is keeping track of who visits them. That is not stalking. Yes, maybe later on, the government or someone else coul…

I think I see where you're coming from, in that you're allowed to have knowledge of other people, and most of the time it's perfectly innocuous. But I don't think that's a very fair comparison. There's a pretty big difference between just happening upon some information (that you would likely immediately forget because it's not important), and actively seeking out and extracting information, often combining it with more information from different sources, saving it to a "profile" associated with you, and often sharing it with third parties, all without your knowledge or consent.

You seem to be implying that there's no difference between having a single piece of harmless information about someone, and having lots of personal and/or intimate knowledge of them, especially if they aren't the ones having given it to you, and even more so if you're strangers.