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

41–47 of 47 posts

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

#41

Post by mixmastamyk »

cj wrote: post #31
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.

Last week’s episode of enshittening dystopia:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47351239

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

#42

Post by john_strinlai »

tomwheeler wrote: post #38
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.…

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.

what other information are you concerned about, present on your id, which is not trivially obtainable by already having your name and address? your height and whether you need glasses is hardly sensitive information (and already available to them -- they record the premises and have your time of purchase).

i dont trust them to store it securely either. my objection is to being okay with your information being placed into a database when that information is manually input, but not okay with it being scanned in. if you arent okay with one method, i dont understand why you would be okay with the other.

we are in agreement that the fact that some random company has to store my information at all is sucky.

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

#45

Post by gdulli »

alex43578 wrote: post #33
hermanzegerman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're so close.

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

#46

Post by petre »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #9
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.

Yes. Federal law requires retailers of drugs containing pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenlypropanolamine to record the buyer's name and address and keep the records for two years ( https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/legal-requi... ). While there is no federal law restricting the sale of medications containing Dextromethorphan, a common cough suppressant, US states have started regulating sales of the…

Sure, a 60 year old is going to cook meth from a bottle of cough syrup.

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

#47

Post by tomwheeler »

john_strinlai wrote: post #42
tomwheeler wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what other information are you concerned about, present on your id, which is not trivially obtainable by already having your name and address? your height and whether you need glasses is hardly sensitive information (and already available to them -- they record the premises and have your time of purchase). i dont trust them to store it securely either. my objection is to being okay with your information being placed…

I'd say the two most important are the date of birth and document ID (e.g., driver's license number). Both are required by the AAMVA 2D barcode standard used for driver's license in the US and both are extremely valuable for identity theft.

Furthermore, the driver's license number is a primary key that could used to join records created by the scan with records in other datasets, potentially giving the company much more information about the customer than they ever realized or agreed to provide.

Post reply on HN