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

501–510 of 627 posts

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

#501

Post by mystraline »

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.

That's not always the case.

Lowes got rid of all cashiers and went to 0 armed bandits (self checkouts).

Menard's has hidden policies which you don't find out until you're at the receiving end. Hut they have human cashiers.

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

#502

Post by underlipton »

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…

Yeah, none of it really works anymore. I'm at the point where my desired approach is, "Give everything away and people be f*cking adults about only taking what's needed, and good stewards of what's taken." It's obvious that all of the socioeconomic guardrails do exactly zero, because downstream of "rich people doing whatever the f*ck they want" is "poor people also doing whatever the f*ck they want, just more desperately". Let there be chaos for a moment, and when everyone realizes that shortages and waste suck, we'll self-organize a better protocol. But these thousand bandages over the festering wound of a culture with a completely disordered relationship to goods can't keep it all together but for so long.

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

#503

Post by mothballed »

stickfigure wrote: post #484
adamrezich wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my mom attended the same high school I graduated from, in the 70s, kids who were hunters would leave firearms in racks on the back of their pickup trucks in the high school parking lot. Not only did said firearms never once get stolen or used to shoot anyone, but, such a thing was simply unthinkable. When I attended the same high school in the 00s, we once were put on a district-wide lockdown because some kid at…

I remember the 70s and my experience was nothing like your mom's. Population centers have always been full of petty crime; rural places are still pretty free from crime. You can still move to plenty of towns with population The one big difference though is today we have school shootings, so folks are pretty humorless about guns near schools. I'd love to hear your ideas for how to solve that, because they keep happeni…

There's definitely a rural element to it. I left probably $10,000 worth of construction equipment out for the stealing for 2 years while building my house in the country. Just totally unmonitored vacant property, surrounded by poor people in trailers who badly could have used the money if they cared to steal it. Of course neighbors would never think to steal it because burning your name in a small town is the same thing as banishment or starving to death because you'll never get another job / lover / friend / help.

It would have been gone in 15 minutes at my house in the city.

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

#504

Post by lostlogin »

mothballed wrote: post #492
frumplestlatz wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m saying that I would prefer to shop at a store that uses shopkeeper’s privilege to detain thieves using reasonable force. The legal limits are very clear and simply enacting violence “against people who might be thieves” is not within them.

Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place. I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide…

I might be misinterpreting the situation, but the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me. The whole situation is wildly outside my experience.

I live in New Zealand.

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

#505

Post by mystraline »

jrs235 wrote: post #133
Ekaros wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why we are even using it anymore? Why not then close down all the prisons? If there is no deterrent effect or rehabilitation effect. Wouldn't it be greater savings just to close it all down and let everyone out?

Because private for profit prison businesses can make money off them. Public is paying for private profits.

Doubly so since the 13th amendment enshrined slavery as a sole ownership by the state, if found guilty of a crime.

And who's the group who is overpoliced in this country? And who up-thread said to target black women? Yep.

The 13th amendment was terrible. It should have never had an exception for punishment for a crime. Instead, we have a states controlled slave state.

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

#506

Post by underlipton »

khuey wrote: post #346
bee_rider wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a supermarket or department store is kinda “new-ish” (on some historical level), right? Like it is a post 1900 invention I think. Before this, most stores were full service. You go up to a merchant in the bazaar, or the grocer behind his stall, with a list, and they go into the inventory to grab the stuff for you. The innovation of having customers grab their own stuff without supervision was required for…

> We should compare it against the actual alternative of stores bottlenecked by clerks that can only serve one customer at a time (or at least stores small enough that a clerk can watch everybody doing their self-service). The modern version of an old time "full service" store is an e-commerce warehouse in an exurb with quick delivery and that actually works just fine for a lot of things. It's a big component of why…

Well, if you're actually paying for delivery. What's happening these days seems to be more of an offloading of that expense onto the deliverypeople. It "works" until a working vehicle becomes too expensive. Then, if you're lucky, you're paying the same amount to get your item in a week, when your house hits their algorithmically-generated route. Alternatively, deliveries could actually be priced marginally above cost (instead of below), and a lot of people can't afford it anymore. Good thing those retailers are still open. /s

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

#507

Post by 4ggr0 »

DaSHacka wrote: post #296
4ggr0 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible. you, I, and probably most people on HN have the privilege of seeing it this way. for others, it's sometimes not a moral question, but a question of survival or at least dignity.

I know, how terrible the thieves are so hard-up they have to eat that pair of Jordans. Or those Milwaukee power tools. Oh my, what a terrible world...

how easy the world is if you limit the examples to the ones which reinforce your way of seeing things.

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

#508

Post by Squeeeez »

drstewart wrote: post #172
47282847 wrote: post #92

I make it a point not to use self-checkout systems because I want to support human interaction even if basic, and contribute to jobs for humans. And cash (most self-checkouts here are card-only). I understand it’s a losing battle on all fronts.

This is why I don't understand people who support mandatory online / one-click subscription cancellation. Support jobs and require people to call-in to a human to cancel. That's a human-centred system that contributes to jobs.

For English, press one...

There are - currently - three-hUndred-and--fifty-seven -- people - inthequeue. Please wait

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

#509

Post by mothballed »

lostlogin wrote: post #504
mothballed wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place. I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide…

I might be misinterpreting the situation, but the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me. The whole situation is wildly outside my experience. I live in New Zealand.

I said weapon, not gun, but theoretically if it were a gun, it wouldn't feel any different than shopping without one. Put a small watergun down your waistband and walk around for a couple days. After a couple you won't notice it, and no one else is going to notice it either. It will become utterly mundane, it similarly applies to a dagger or whatever concealable weapon one may be able to get ahold of.

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

#510

Post by mystraline »

FireBeyond wrote: post #478
anewonenow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 own…

Crime itself is 100% political issue as well, and you show a case of that.

Someone steals enough from big box store, and the cops DO RESPOND and charge etc.

Individual has proof of multiple thefts, and cops don't give one fuck, as in your case.

Now speaking of retail theft, by far the biggest retail theft is time-theft against employees. Do you know wwhat happens when you report that? You're told its a civil matter.

Individual wronged == civil matter

Big company == criminal matter

Post reply on HN