Secretly? They show you they're recording your face. They don't point the cameras at both the scanner and your face simultaneously.
Anyone rubbing two brain cells together could deduce that they're using facial recognition.
Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
471–480 of 627 posts
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#472Earlier 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…
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)
If a hit and run hadn't been involved they wouldn't have gotten caught.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
This subthread is not about the use of such a technology, but about Home Depot tracking a customer to build a prosecution case over time. So, no, they're not using it to prevent theft, they're using it to punish theft they've allowed.
Potato, potato. Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem?
>Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem?
Because a company isn't the government. The government prosecutes. A company might be an interested bystander, but they don't prosecute anyone.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus, like everybody in retail, LP’s measured performance indicator is how busy they look when management is around. The best way to do that without getting in a fight is to annoy people who don’t actually have anything to hide.
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?
It’s not ICE’s opinion about who is illegal, it’s congress’s. Didn’t they create the immigration laws that are on the books? I can never understand why people seem to blame the enforcement agencies for the laws they are enforcing.
But I agree with the sentiment that they are selecting the easiest targets.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#475Earlier 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…
>Even so called security guards want no part of trash bag man because there is a high chance of violence and most humans do not want to engage with that. There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. (There are many more who don't actively enjoy it, but don't mind engaging in it and consider being competent at violence an important part of being a…
You will also go to jail. It’s not self-defense:
https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-co...
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 o…
You cannot be more wrong.
Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.
I would love to understand if you truly believed that no such federal statute exists, or we’re just intentionally spreading misinformation.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a…
Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
> i.e. to get them above a theft threshhold, at which point prosecution becomes easier This feels like it should be illegal. Holding back on reporting or prosecuting until you think you're more likely to get a conviction or a bigger conviction, feels close to entrapment. To do otherwise is just unnecessarily vindictive, showing that it's the punishment that matters more than the prevention.
The issue is that in many states now prosecutors refuse to prosecute for crimes under a certain threshold, cops often won’t even bother taking a report. A year ago my wallet was stolen. The guy went on a shopping spree until my cc companies started denying charges. In each store he made sure to spend less than $500, so individually there was no crime worth reporting. I did file it as $2k+ of stolen goods but afaik th…
> I did file it as $2k+ of stolen goods but afaik the cops never pursued it and the thief got away with it.
Hah. I had pretty good evidence when it came to my stolen laptop and iPhone when I was given a lead to the person selling them on eBay (essentially, someone bought the phone on eBay, tried to convince me to unlock it, and when I refused and the seller refused to take it as a return, he said "I know the real owners info and I'm giving him your info").
His eBay page was a treasure trove. Probably 100+ phones for sale, most "without charger". Same, 50+ laptops, "no chargers or accessories".
Contacted the police.
"He probably didn't steal them himself" - Uhh, isn't selling knowingly stolen property still a crime?
"..."
They could not possibly have cared less.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't recall ever seeing a Wally World where the laptop boxes are just out for the taking, not in a locked cabinet. That being said, Target stores in Washington do something similar, as the threshold for felony theft is $1,000, they'll pull the trigger on LE / LP involvement if you hit that threshold over multiple events, and bring the receipts for the previous. I _somewhat_ think that's ripe to be challenged on pr…
It seems like a good lawyer should be able to win. Evidence that shows a person picking something up on camera and then leaving the store without paying for anything doesn't feel all that strong.
Yeah i feel like there are exact same pictures when i buy something, if you happen to leave out the pictures from when i was standing in line and at the checkout. you could totally make it look like i stole stuff.
Re: Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even so called security guards want no part of trash bag man because there is a high chance of violence and most humans do not want to engage with that. There are plenty of reliable young men who enjoy engaging in violence and will take low-paid jobs in store security. (There are many more who don't actively enjoy it, but don't mind engaging in it and consider being competent at violence an important part of being a…
You will also go to jail. It’s not self-defense: https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-walgreens-manager-co...
That's gonna depend where the jury is coming from. SF, yes. "Try that in a small town" hicks probably not.