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

421–430 of 627 posts

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

#421

Post by jimmydddd »

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…

Any idea (besides the mask) why they picked you? Are you part of a visible minorty group?

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

#422

Post by WaltPurvis »

jaffa2 wrote: post #352
rovr138 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part for me is when they prevent you from scanning the same item twice. Yes, I want 2 boxes of cereal. I just find it easier to go to a cashier.

you have to put the item on the scale before it lets yo uscan the next item. So you can scan the same item twice if you scan it once, put the other item on the scale, and scan the item again.

My go-to grocery store does not use a scale in the bagging area. You don't even have to bag anything, you can just scan items and put them back in your cart, which is what I normally do. There is one employee standing there monitoring 7 or 8 self-checkouts, but they've never confronted me about allegedly not scanning something, and I've never heard them confronting anyone else.

Another nearby mega-chain still uses the scales and makes you bag every item before you can scan anything else. I don't ever shop there, almost entirely for that reason alone. I would definitely never knowingly shop at a store that was scanning my face and storing it in a database.

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

#423

Post by c22 »

doctor_radium wrote: post #212
neuralRiot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this, last time I went to HD I had a cart with maybe 20 items, NONE of the working self-checkouts accepted cash so I just walked out with empty hands. Now I decided that if a place doesn’t have human cashiers I just don’t shop there and give priority to small stores, I might pay more but at least I know the profits are for a neighbor.

> NONE of the working self-checkouts accepted cash so I just walked out with empty hands. I'm pretty sure this is illegal. All businesses need to accept cash somewhere, somehow. I am curious what would happen if you forced the issue and announced to the attendant that you intend to pay in cash.

As far as I know this is not accurate. A business may be required to accept cash in order to settle an outstanding debt that it is owed, but I don't think anything prevents them from simply refusing to do business with you from the outset if you don't accept their payment terms.

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

#424

Post by dfxm12 »

y-curious wrote: post #408
dkiebd wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know how it is in the states but in most places in Europe using violence against a violent person is likely to end up very badly for you, even if you are a guard and have the necessary permits and training. You are not going to risk being fined or jailed to stop some criminal from shoplifting from a store that is not even yours.

What is the role of a security guard if not to wield violence? Their equipment implies a capability for violence. Are they unable to perform their job legally in Europe?

Security theater. Intimidation. Calling the cops. Insurance requirements.

Neither stores nor the guard want to escalate a situation to a violent situation. The stores don't want bad press or liability for collateral damage. The security guard isn't trying to put their body on the line for some merchandise. Yeah, maybe you have a cowboy looking for trouble, but based on my experience talking/working with some guards, I'd be surprised if they are instructed to get physically involved.

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

#425

Post by throwway120385 »

nomdep wrote: post #419
rob74 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be seen at many levels of society. ICE also prefers to round up harmless immigrants that show up for court hearings, work in fields, wait at bus stations or deliver their children to day care rather than the "dangerous criminals" that they keep on boasting about. And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal in their view anyway, why bother?

> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal... Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

Immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's not a crime per se to overstay a visa like say shoplifting or killing someone. It's more like there's a proceeding to determine whether you did overstay and then when there's a finding of fact they basically tell you you have to leave or they remove you from the country forcibly. It would be patently ridiculous to jail someone for overstaying or for working on a tourist visa or for any of a number of these things.

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

#426

Post by lokar »

y-curious wrote: post #408
dkiebd wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know how it is in the states but in most places in Europe using violence against a violent person is likely to end up very badly for you, even if you are a guard and have the necessary permits and training. You are not going to risk being fined or jailed to stop some criminal from shoplifting from a store that is not even yours.

What is the role of a security guard if not to wield violence? Their equipment implies a capability for violence. Are they unable to perform their job legally in Europe?

They are there to intervene when there is violence against a person, not property.

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

#427

Post by boppo1 »

adamrezich wrote: post #420
MisterTea wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet bearded street person with big trash bag full of product makes them think of lovable Santa? They do not want to confront trash bag man for good reason. What happened is people who don't give a fuck and have no problem with using violence realized there's nothing stopping them from loading up bags of goods and walking out of the store. "Oh you want to stop me? just try mother fucker." Even so called security gua…

Maybe there was something to the high-trust society we once had. Perhaps it had something going for it that we lost when we decided to forsake it.

And how did we 'forsake' it?

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

#428

Post by doka_smoka »

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…

[dead]

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

#429

Post by valleyer »

nomdep wrote: post #419
rob74 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be seen at many levels of society. ICE also prefers to round up harmless immigrants that show up for court hearings, work in fields, wait at bus stations or deliver their children to day care rather than the "dangerous criminals" that they keep on boasting about. And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal in their view anyway, why bother?

> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal... Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

No. Overstaying a visa or not leaving when temporary protected status is suddenly revoked (or asylum is not granted) is not a criminal offense under US federal law.

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

#430

Post by nobody9999 »

nomdep wrote: post #419
rob74 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be seen at many levels of society. ICE also prefers to round up harmless immigrants that show up for court hearings, work in fields, wait at bus stations or deliver their children to day care rather than the "dangerous criminals" that they keep on boasting about. And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal in their view anyway, why bother?

> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal... Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

>> And since every illegal immigrant is already a criminal...

>Not to be pedantic, but by definition it is, isn’t it?

It is not[0].

Being present in the US without legal status is a civil infraction and not a crime. Unlawful entry is a criminal act however.

That said, the vast majority of undocumented folks entered the US legally and overstayed their visas. Which is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

Those who made an (whether valid or not) asylum claim are legally in the United States until their asylum claim can be adjudicated.

[0] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illeg...

Post reply on HN