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

431–440 of 627 posts

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

#431

Post by lokar »

respondo2134 wrote: post #356
dml2135 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting rid of checkout clerks, forcing customers to use self-checkout, and then surveilling and policing said customers to make sure that the unpaid labor they are now performing is done flawlessly is just so dystopic. IMO, if you want to have self-checkout, you need to accept a higher rate of loss. That's the tradeoff for replacing your employees with robots and forcing labor onto the consumer. You can't have your…

self-checkout at a grocery store is so maddening. There are enough edge cases (discounted items, multiples, lack of barcodes, special deals) to make it painful if you have anything more than a few staples. And I'm sure it's also part of the disgusting push to barcode & box produce which is a negative for everyone but the suppliers & stores. >> IMO, if you want to have self-checkout, you need to accept a higher rate o…

It’s not a universal replacement for a clerk, but it can be very useful.

I can be through the whole process at CVS (with some random item like a birthday card) in about 30 seconds.

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

#432

Post by doka_smoka »

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.

[dead]

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

#433

Post by flir »

DaSHacka wrote: post #391
flir wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>fellow man >criminals Nice bit of dehumanizing language there.

A thief is, by definition, a criminal

You are a human and a human is by definition an animal. Yet I don't call you an animal.

Your word choice isn't neutral; it leaks information about you.

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

#434

Post by flir »

flerchin wrote: post #357
flir wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think the arrow of causality doesn't go homelessness->drugs?

The ones I know personally ruined their lives with drugs, and ended up on the street. It's an intertwined issue, but the direction of causality is pretty clear when, eg, one brother is poor, but employed and in a shitty apartment, and the other is a human pit of misery and the primary fork was a proclivity for illicit drugs in his teens.

It really always astonished me that even here, in a community of people in a domain where logic is necessary there is still this stranglehold of irrational proto-religious, emotion based belief and dogma.

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

#435

Post by qingcharles »

MisterTea wrote: post #269
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…

> 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…

I know of a Walmart shelf stacker who ran after someone who grabbed a $5 hat on their way out. They had a run-in with the getaway car and ended up in a coma for two months and Walmart had to spend over $2m in medical bills.

(the offenders were caught by police later that day, so it really wasn't worth the trouble to run after them)

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

#436

Post by conductr »

margalabargala wrote: post #318
conductr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. W…

Sure it does. I can use words any way I want. But there are agreed upon legal definitions and there are agreed upon industry terms/definition; you are talking about one of them (which sounds like industry not legal). If there's no legal definition, that means it's not defined and the court could interpret it any way they choose.

Edit: it seems the law defined the term "facial recognition" so that was the only answer I was seeking

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

#437

Post by qingcharles »

ojosilva wrote: post #95
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #40

Home Depot's self-checkouts are using this facial ID to build/maintain their shoplifting database — this tracks thefts by the same person across multiple visits, and is used over time to build up a case against errant self-checkout-ers (i.e. to get them above a theft threshhold, at which point prosecution becomes easier). There is also CCTV AI (whether artificial intelligence, or actually indians) which can intervene…

Beware that face detection may not be an issue under BIPA if it's not storing biometric markers [1], only a hash. As an engineer, and concerned citizen, I'd say that's a thin line as far as privacy protections go, but apparently the law disagrees and face detection tech suppliers are well-aware on how to monetize on the discrepancy [2] In any case, the plaintiff will most likely be able to take the case to discovery.…

Probably discovery and a settlement to avoid a trial on this. BIPA has statutory payouts which will cripple you (rightly or wrongly). Statutory fines can be an awesome way to vindicate the public's rights and stop companies being assholes. It's way easier to litigate and settle a case than using torts.

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

#438

Post by conductr »

mannykannot wrote: post #316
conductr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thorough…

The courts may disagree. That's why I'm curious if the comment was from a legal context. If we had prior case law of them distinguishing one definition in favor of another, I'd feel more certain about all the assertations being made. If there are no cases, then the courts could interpret however they want in conflict of your entire comment.

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

#439

Post by conductr »

mlyle wrote: post #380
conductr wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Words have a definition and a connotation, and meaning is inferred from context cues. What a word means is based on its prevailing word in this context. No one reasonably uses "facial recognition" or "I recognized a face" to mean "I detected that there was, indeed, a face there." In this case, the statute doesn't even say "facial recognition". It discusses storing a "scan of face geometry" such that it identifies an…

Ok if the law defines the term, that answers my question. I wasn't sure what level of grey area connotation was being discussed.

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

#440

Post by qingcharles »

criddell wrote: post #407
speedylight wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just easier, they’re probably waiting until the cumulative value leads to felony theft charges.

How would that work? If they have video from a year ago that looks like a person pocketing some item, what good is that without them showing that the person actually had possession of the item after they left the store?

I've seen a lot of discovery in these criminal cases from Walmart. They do typically wait until the loss reaches a certain point before acting and then they will come with a mountain of photos and videos showing the offender picking up the items all the way to them leaving the store on each visit.

I remember one I saw where the guy was filling two shopping carts with laptops at each Walmart, each one so high he could barely see over them. Then pushing the two carts out through the tire shop area. Did this at multiple stores. Walmart only called the cops once it was over $60K estimated loss.

Post reply on HN