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

311–320 of 627 posts

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

#311

Post by snarf21 »

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]

So your solution is to put people who are desperate enough to steal say $500 of goods from a pharmacy into jail at a cost of $50K+? As others have said, that money is better spend helping these people out of poverty or helping them with their addictions rather than trying to "teach them a lesson".

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

#312

Post by margalabargala »

gblargg wrote: post #103
idiotsecant wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also wish that elevators would go back to having attendants that drive you to your floor? When a job doesn't need people, keeping a person there is not some kind of noble gesture. It's annoying.

Or those backward states where you must let the gas station attendant pump your gas.

There's only one of those, New Jersey.

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

#314

Post by Scoundreller »

distances wrote: post #204
conductr wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a trained cashier, if I forget to scan something it's not the same as theft. Not sure how it would play out in a court situation but this is always my go-to when I get accused of fucking something up in the store; also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state). Most professional cashiers are only trained in one merchant's POS. Suddenly, me a layman consumer is supposed to be a flawless o…

It's thankfully still an option not to use self-checkouts. I sometimes do that if I have one item only, but basically always queue to an actual cashier.

I loved the early days when nobody touched the self-checkouts and it was like an additional choice.

Not surprising that they’ve titrated the cashier lines to always be much longer.

At least it’s not a government again giving you quick service if you sign away your rights with a lineup around the block for those that with to assert their rights.

I’m also thankful that my local grocery store is subject to a massive development proposal, so they’re not bothering with capital improvements like self-checkout.

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

#315

Post by 34679 »

justinrubek wrote: post #291
Henchman21 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should all go to the cashier anyway. I’m not a store employee and I don’t do their work. Besides, if the cashier fucks up it isn’t my problem.

I've watched too many cashiers put their fingers in their nose right before someone came to their line. I'd rather skip out on their gross fingers.

Yeah, use the touchscreen instead.

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

#316

Post by mannykannot »

conductr wrote: post #137
mlyle wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not how dictionaries work. When multiple definitions are given, it does not follow - and in many cases, it is not even possible - that they are all applicable in any context.

Ignoring context leads to things like "English as She is Spoke" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke

Decent dictionaries give some guidance as to the contexts in which each each definition is applicable, but for thoroughness you probably cannot beat the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary.

The relevant definition here is neither legal nor technical, but from common usage, where recognizing a face, if not qualified, is taken to mean recognizing an individual by their face, not recognizing that you are seeing a face.

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

#317

Post by bevhill »

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #298
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…

>an N95 is a good idea in a pharmacy on a college campus, where the Covid factories that are college students will go Did I just step into a time portal to 2022? Have you... been in a coma for the past several years? haha

Peak COVID never ended. It's more important now than ever to stay vaccinated, maintain social distance, and mask up.

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

#318

Post by margalabargala »

conductr wrote: post #137
mlyle wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The total options for dictionary terms for "recognition" does not mean that you can select any among them, decide that that's what "facial recognition" means, and expect anyone else to understand you.

"Facial recognition" refers to seeing a face and knowing whose face it is. It's the difference between "that's a face" and "that's my friend Jeff".

That some constituent word has some other definition is not relevant. What you're doing is equivalent to reading "my nose is running" and thinking "egads! This person's nose has sprouted legs and taken off down the track!"

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

#319

Post by bevhill »

snarf21 wrote: post #311
bmn__ wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So your solution is to put people who are desperate enough to steal say $500 of goods from a pharmacy into jail at a cost of $50K+? As others have said, that money is better spend helping these people out of poverty or helping them with their addictions rather than trying to "teach them a lesson".

Organized crime or a disorganized black market supply chain aren't desperate.

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

#320

Post by bevhill »

hopelite wrote: post #205
immibis wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it rich people in the homeless camps?

Then you are looking at it from a totally wrong perspective anyways, just like most people do. The homeless encampments are full of people with mental illness challenges and/or in one or another way related to drugs. It is why I cannot stand drug use apologists and drug dealer/traffickers defenders that at the same time lament poverty and homelessness. The poverty is not the cause, it is the symptom of the system’s r…

I'm totally with you! These are huge societal problems we have to solve, and nothing can get better until everyone is taken care of.
Post reply on HN