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

The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#31

Post by cj »

kittikitti wrote: post #29

I have a friend whose nearest grocery store is surrounded by Flock "safety" cameras. The police and security in the retail or grocery stores regularly share data and logins, and this extends across multiple states. He says it's been brought up in mundane traffic court and affected his ability to enroll his children into schools. Not only that, but his ability to seek legal guidance is hindered since the state can eas…

Flock cameras prevent someone from enrolling a child in school?

I'd be curious to hear how those dots connect.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#32

Post by morkalork »

kittikitti wrote: post #29

I have a friend whose nearest grocery store is surrounded by Flock "safety" cameras. The police and security in the retail or grocery stores regularly share data and logins, and this extends across multiple states. He says it's been brought up in mundane traffic court and affected his ability to enroll his children into schools. Not only that, but his ability to seek legal guidance is hindered since the state can eas…

You'll have to elaborate more on some of the details

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#33

Post by alex43578 »

hermanzegerman wrote: post #20
gib444 wrote: post #10

Shops are making extremely feeble efforts to curtail theft such that I think it's a nice cover for raising prices, slashing costs and increasing data capitalism etc For example at a local Asda, an expensive donut brand are placed right by the entrance. I see people stealing them all the time. At Gregg's bakery, many popular items are left on a table half way to the door, almost inviting theft. Other expensive items a…

If you have decent social nets you don't need to worry about theft of basic items. If people stealing food is such a big problem, your country is fucked up in a bad way. Here they don't even watch the self checkout, and don't use those annoying checkouts with a scale.

When people are stealing armfuls of Tide detergent or tools from Home Depot, it's clear they aren't stealing because a weak social net is preventing them washing their clothes. They're thieves, stealing for profit, end of story.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#34

Post by tomwheeler »

john_strinlai wrote: post #7
bloomingeek wrote: post #6

We were in our local Target store yesterday. My wife purchased some OTC cough syrup, the self check out register wanted an employee for confirmation she was the proper age. (We're in our sixty's.) Instead of just looking at her driver's license, he used his handheld device to scan the license! I would never allow this, myself.

> Instead of just looking at her driver's license, he used his handheld device to scan the license! depending on what is in the cough syrup, they arent using the scanner to verify age. they are tracking who makes the purchase, so if a bunch of meth or whatever gets cooked up, they have a list of suspects.

In my state, you can buy products with pseudoephedrine over the counter, but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#35

Post by john_strinlai »

tomwheeler wrote: post #34
john_strinlai wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of just looking at her driver's license, he used his handheld device to scan the license! depending on what is in the cough syrup, they arent using the scanner to verify age. they are tracking who makes the purchase, so if a bunch of meth or whatever gets cooked up, they have a list of suspects.

In my state, you can buy products with pseudoephedrine over the counter, but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.

>[...] but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.

there is very little difference except one is manual input and one is automated input. so, i am not quite sure i am understanding your objection to one and not the other. either your are ok with your information being recorded, or you arent -- the "how it is entered into the recording system" part seems immaterial to me.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#37

Post by remarkEon »

At some point we have to realize that all of these super intrusive tech implementations are downstream from devolving into a low trust society. The reason we have to do this in the first place is because we are electing to not put the people who abuse these goods in prison. That’s a choice we are making. The trade off is additional overhead and risk on police and prosecutorial misconduct vs vast state and corporate surveillance apparatus. Pick your poison but choose wisely.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#38

Post by tomwheeler »

john_strinlai wrote: post #35
tomwheeler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my state, you can buy products with pseudoephedrine over the counter, but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.

> [...] but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it. there is very little difference except one is manual input and one is automated input. so, i am not quite sure i am understanding your objection to one and not the other.…

At least where I live, the only information they log when looking at my ID is my name and address. Scanning my ID gives them additional information, which increases the vulnerability.

I don't trust them to store it securely nor to avoid the temptation to use that information for other purposes. The only countermeasure is to prevent them from having that information in the first place.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#39

Post by Teever »

john_strinlai wrote: post #35
tomwheeler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my state, you can buy products with pseudoephedrine over the counter, but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.

> [...] but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it. there is very little difference except one is manual input and one is automated input. so, i am not quite sure i am understanding your objection to one and not the other.…

There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not.

I don't want my identity stolen after I bought some cough syrupe because some dirt-bag third party ID management company that was contracted by a pharmacy didn't do their job.

Re: The next fight over the use of facial recognition could be in the supermarkets

#40

Post by john_strinlai »

Teever wrote: post #39
john_strinlai wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it. there is very little difference except one is manual input and one is automated input. so, i am not quite sure i am understanding your objection to one and not the other.…

There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not. I don't want my identity stolen after I bought some cough syrupe because some dirt-bag third party ID management company that was contracted by a pharmacy didn't do their job.

>There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not.

they arent scanning as in photocopying. they are scanning the barcode to get the name/address information

the 3rd party (pharmacy, in this case) gets and keeps the information in both scenarios.

>dirt-bag third party ID management company

this isnt online age-verification stuff. the pharmacy itself is typically the one storing the information, and querying it against a government database.

Post reply on HN