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

151–160 of 627 posts

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

#151

Post by lmm »

cortesoft wrote: post #74
Ekaros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like proper punishment is only way to get deterrent effect. Or the courts to do their job. So to me this sounds like workable way, stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.

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.

Best available evidence is that:

- Punishment works to deter crime when it's immediate and high-likelihood. Particularly, if someone gets caught and faces some immediate consequence on one of the first few times they shoplift (especially the first time) then that makes a huge difference to the probability that they'll become a habitual shoplifter

- The vast majority of shoplifting is done by a small number of essentially lifelong career shoplifters. Imprisoning them is unlikely to set them straight, but taking them off the streets for long periods makes a significant impact on the amount of shoplifting the community experiences

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

#152

Post by closewith »

widforss wrote: post #55
AngryData wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure we should allow such premeditated charge stacking, it is just further weaponizing the law and fueling our prison industrial complex for zero gain to society. Who is to say many of those people wouldn't have stopped after being caught and charged the first time? Imagine if cops sat on the side of the road not pulling people over, just recording minor traffic offenses in a file, and then a year or so later…

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.

The difference is that you are informed and penalised each time, rightly giving you the option to change your behaviour. A police officer following a speeder to deliberately have enough offences to take their license immediately would be at least frowned upon in most jurisdictions.

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

#153

Post by showdeaduser »

cortesoft wrote: post #74
Ekaros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like proper punishment is only way to get deterrent effect. Or the courts to do their job. So to me this sounds like workable way, stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.

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.

[dead]

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

#154

Post by benchly »

4ggr0 wrote: post #145
benchly wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I was repeatedly told to target black women not that i'm that surprised, but still shocking to read such things in 2025.

I should have specified that I worked LP in the early 2000's but I doubt much has changed, since bigotry and racism do not seem to ever go away, especially when it's woven into the fabric of an institution.

Lasted a mere 6 months at that job before I decided I could no longer turn a blind eye, since by then it had become clear to me that the problem was not isolated to just a few LP associates.

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

#155

Post by pastage »

vineyardmike wrote: post #131
pastage wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reduce…

It is insanity but the opinion is not a fringe one, and people are not insane just because they differ in opinion. I think everyone agrees that how you comport yourself should have consequences, inaction and action might be equally bad. Finding a suitable consequence is a hard problem because opinions differs so much.

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

#156

Post by 4ggr0 »

benchly wrote: post #154
4ggr0 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was repeatedly told to target black women not that i'm that surprised, but still shocking to read such things in 2025.

I should have specified that I worked LP in the early 2000's but I doubt much has changed, since bigotry and racism do not seem to ever go away, especially when it's woven into the fabric of an institution. Lasted a mere 6 months at that job before I decided I could no longer turn a blind eye, since by then it had become clear to me that the problem was not isolated to just a few LP associates.

[flagged]

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

#157

Post by pilingual »

Don't people dodge these cameras?

When I used a credit card at home depot self checkout I was asked if I wanted to have the receipt sent to a specific email address I entered previously online. Creepy. So I started using cash only.

Last year I went to get some low voltage wire. I walked for several aisles in both directions to find someone to open the cage. Not a soul. So I reached behind the cage and pulled it out, went to self checkout, began paying with cash. The machine said it couldn't issue change and to see an associate. Seemed odd as it was early in the day. Associate casually went to another register and got me change. When I went to my car (parked far away of course) there was a police car hanging out right next to it. Nothing further happened, but all too coincidental.

I discovered a smaller local hardware store and go there. The employees constantly ask you if you need help which is the complete opposite of home depot.

Under no circumstance will I shop at Home Depot again.

(And, today I drove by that HD and noticed they installed multiple ALPR.)

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

#158

Post by RugnirViking »

closewith wrote: post #149
bmn__ wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Put the criminals in prison. Do it often enough, and shoplifting ceases to be a problem of plague-like proportions. Big fan of accountability and immediate personal consequences and enforcing the law. This just doesn't work. A high-trust society cannot be built by force. > I am fatigued of the suicidal and deleterious empathy of those in charge who refuse to take second-order effects into account. The irony here is…

> A high-trust society cannot be built by force.

Imo we're kinda in the worse quadrant of whats possible.

You can either have high visibility/force of prevention efforts or low. And you can have high actual rates of crime or low.

Imo we currently have low actual rates of crime (you see people saying oh its rampant in California or whatever but im not there and can't make an accurate assessment of it over the internet) and highly visible (damn near pervasive) efforts at preventing crime in almost every corner of our lives. "please don't abuse our staff" "cctv in operation", facial recognition, constant assumptions that you are a threat. If I didn't know better its almost like they "want" people to be criminals -- it seems like according to some other threads there are at least some people whose jobs it would make easier

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

#159

Post by dns_snek »

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.

> You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.

Maybe not by that name, but that enemy is classism and it transcends geography. Many people are quick to make extremely serious moral judgements about less fortunate people because they haven't been in that position.

> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle.

There are many people who don't want others to have it easier than they had it, even when the solution is harmless. Many people even endure unnecessary hardship by choice because it allows them to feel morally superior to everyone else. It may feel compelling but it's not right, and it's not beneficial to society.

Post reply on HN