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

Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 627 posts

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#131

Post by vineyardmike »

pastage wrote: post #83
GOD_Over_Djinn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing from Home Depot doesn’t make you a “sociopathic criminal”. It’s shoplifting, not murder. Besides, people who are stealing building supplies are probably doing it because they’re hard up for money and trying to make more on whatever jobs they have. They’re not stealing some random superfluous consumer goods, they’re just broke and trying to make a little more money. It’s really not that hard to understand - u…

> white collar Silicon Valley bubble This is not helping. You should not make up an enemy that does not exist. There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle. Go back to the reason of an eye for an eye, it is compelling even if it has been disproven.

> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment

Then they probably don't find "an eye for an eye" compelling. The whole expression is meant to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Stealing from Home Depot is a pretty minor crime, so should warrant pretty minor punishment.

And it is widely proven that people who are experiencing struggles in life are more likely to turn to crime. Reducing poverty reduces crime. Just because some people struggled and now want to dish out punishments, doesn't make it "sane" nor effective.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#132

Post by widforss »

fluoridation wrote: post #59
widforss wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is essentially the exact point system used for traffic infractions in many countries over the world. Driving 10 km/h above the speed limit? No biggie, you pay a fine. Do it three times? We take your license.

No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.

You are correct, I didn't realize this nuance.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#133

Post by jrs235 »

Ekaros wrote: post #81
cortesoft wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have ANY evidence that sending someone to jail for a few months to a few years sets people on a straight path? I am pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite.

So why we are even using it anymore? Why not then close down all the prisons? If there is no deterrent effect or rehabilitation effect. Wouldn't it be greater savings just to close it all down and let everyone out?

Because private for profit prison businesses can make money off them. Public is paying for private profits.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#134

Post by fluoridation »

anewonenow wrote: post #68
fluoridation wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the store is going to be tracking this information, it could just as easily show a message to the offender. "Hey, we're on to you. Knock it off, or else." Going straight for the jugular is just rude.

How about stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible. Trying to justify stealing power tools “bec it’s a big corporation” further degrades society and creates a dishonest low-trust culture. I live in Illinois and look forward to collecting my $2k check for this but the reality is that the only person to blame for the theft is the person committing the theft. The same way we don’t blame women for how they dress or just…

If the company prefers to allow the theft to continue as long they get to press charges, instead of taking more immediate measures that would stop the theft outright, such as banning the person (which must be feasible if they're tracking the person by facial features), somehow I don't think it must be having much of an impact. Note that I'm not defending the thieves here. I'm just saying that this approach seems unnecessarily vindictive and not useful to solve the problem which, let's remember, is "people steal", not "thieves go unpunished".

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#136

Post by culturestate »

stephen_g wrote: post #90
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #40

Home Depot's self-checkouts are using this facial ID to build/maintain their shoplifting database — this tracks thefts by the same person across multiple visits, and is used over time to build up a case against errant self-checkout-ers (i.e. to get them above a theft threshhold, at which point prosecution becomes easier). There is also CCTV AI (whether artificial intelligence, or actually indians) which can intervene…

I've noticed at supermarkets here that of the dozens of times those 'you haven't scanned something' warnings have come up, only one time the item hadn't actually scanned when I thought it had. Every other time has been a false positive for me. They're pretty dodgy, the workers always seem pretty frustrated with it as they go around clearing them for people (sometimes a handful of people waiting, falsely accused by th…

All of the places around here that had first-gen units with a scale on the packing side (to make sure you actually scanned eg a banana and not a two pound block of cheese, yet were constantly wrong) have replaced them with newer versions that don't have scales or any other way that I can see to validate that what you scanned is what you put into your bag.

I'm not sure where I would find the data to back this up, but since it seems like an across-the-board change I imagine the labor savings have proven to outweigh (heh) the inventory shrinkage.

To me, the Uniqlo system where everything has an RFID tag and the machine just automatically scans the contents of your basket is the platonic ideal but I know that comes with issues of its own in different retail contexts.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#137

Post by conductr »

mlyle wrote: post #52
m463 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still "recognizes a face" and shows this. Legal terms do not have to be scientific or engineering terms.

Detecting a face is not the same as recognizing a face in either engineering parlance or typical usage. If I don't determine this is a face that I've seen before, I've not recognized the face (maybe I have recognized that there is a face there ). To recognize entails re-cognizing: knowing again what was previously known. Simply noticing that something is a face does not satisfy that; it is only detecting. Without lin…

Is this coming from legal definitions?

Because, one of the valid dictionary definitions of "recognition" is simply acknowledging something exists. No prior knowledge needed for that, other than the generic training the facial detection software has undergone.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#138

Post by saubeidl »

I am of the firm opinion that if big corps want to outsource their labor to me, the customer, then it is my right to treat myself to a few free items here and there as compensation for the work being done.

If you don't want that to happen, give cashiers their jobs back, you greedy bastards.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#139

Post by benchly »

neilv wrote: post #78
neilv wrote: post #76

I'm pretty sick of misguided/enthusiastic Loss Prevention people, and these digital systems amplify their hijinks. The most conspicuous one recently was at one upscale grocery chain within the last year. There was what I took to be a dedicated LP person who seemed to be lurking behind the self-checkouts, to watch me specifically, and I stood there until he went away. Then, as I was checking out, this employee came up…

Less relevant, but reminds me of my all-time favorite grocery store LP encounter, near MIT. The chain was running this big promotion with lots of tear-open prize tickets that are either coupons or game board pieces, so I had been visiting often, to buy ramen noodles (one ticket per package!) and I had a small stack of coupons in my wallet. I was checking my coupons for this visit in the middle of a center aisle, and…

Appreciate the story, but what's the hangup about naming these companies?

It's not really a secret that retail LP generally abuses their role across the board and allows prejudace to run rampant in its ranks, giving that it is almost entirely comprised of people from backgrounds that lack any higher education and recieved a few months training at best to do what they do. Heck, step in any active American mall and you will encounter mostly white men who didn't quite have the chutzpa for the police academy, but still carry the guilty-til-proven-otherwise attitude.

Source: I was LP briefly for TJX companies and left due to the rampant and accepted bigotry I encountered with them. In their case, it was that I was repeatedly told to target black women if I wanted to meet quota each month, since their own numbers said most apprehensions were black women and not one person in the LP heirarchy knew what confirmation bias or survivor bias was. Also, yes, they have quotas. I was put on their equivalent of a PIP the second month I was there for not meeting mine. We can rest assured that Kroger, Walmart, etc, use lots of the same tactics and quiet codes.

Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts

#140

Post by ruszki »

bmn__ wrote: post #120
neilv wrote: post #76

I'm pretty sick of misguided/enthusiastic Loss Prevention people, and these digital systems amplify their hijinks. The most conspicuous one recently was at one upscale grocery chain within the last year. There was what I took to be a dedicated LP person who seemed to be lurking behind the self-checkouts, to watch me specifically, and I stood there until he went away. Then, as I was checking out, this employee came up…

[flagged]

AFAIK improving on poverty is a more effective approach.
Post reply on HN