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

531–540 of 627 posts

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

#531

Post by otterley »

delichon wrote: post #456
bevhill wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WOW. Look, being in the country without "authorization" isn't even a crime. It's an administrative matter. Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.

The act of entry without inspection is a misdemeanor crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Repeat offenses can be felonies. It is just a civil violation if they have once entered with permission but lost it, e.g. a visa overstay or violation, adjustment denial, status expiration or revocation. So the Biden era catch-and-release rules created millions of such cases.

You missed the bigger point to focus on the technical inaccuracy:

> Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.

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

#532

Post by ThrowMeAway1618 »

otterley wrote: post #530
ThrowMeAway1618 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Apparently, neither is satire. Poe's law[0] rears its ugly head yet again.

Sad.

https://satirified.com/the-role-of-satire-in-social-commenta...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

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

#533

Post by tutorialmanager »

bevhill wrote: post #326
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?

People don't need "rehabilitation", they need help. Nobody would need to shoplift if they could afford what they need. Prices should always be indexed to the customer's income. That's it - make it so everyone can afford things, and crime ends overnight. It works for healthcare. People with insurance pay for those without. Why not for groceries and TVs?

So if I report less income, prices for me go down and no penalty if I get caught.

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

#534

Post by criddell »

pixl97 wrote: post #515
mmmlinux wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, you could, but when walmart sees you walking out the door, they'll go trace your entire route and keep the film off of each of the cameras from entrance to exit of the store. They tend to put up a very good prosecution.

In the end though, unless they stop you and find the merchandise or have you on video with the stuff outside of the store, there's no proof you stole anything. It's circumstantial which is relatively weak.

Plus, Walmart doesn't prosecute anybody. They hand the evidence over to the police and the the district attorney decides if they want to prosecute. Walmart can file a civil suit which I'm wondering if that's what they actually do. There (as I understand it), they only have to show that you likely stole something vs a criminal case where they have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you stole something. It's a much lower bar.

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

#535

Post by hollerith »

brookst wrote: post #482
frumplestlatz wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are they supposed to do, just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely? I’d rather shop at a store that actually prevents theft, deterring future thieves from stealing. It will be a safer place to shop with lower prices.

Are you saying you would continue shopping in a store where you regularly saw violence against people who might be thieves, on the assumption you’d never be mistaken for one?

In the 1970s I saw a security guard or 2 chase a thief out of a store then tackle and detain him right in front of me. Didn't make me hesitate to go back to the store or cause any worry that guards might tackle me.

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

#536

Post by chasd00 »

neilv wrote: post #377
cooper_ganglia wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>an N95 is a good idea in a pharmacy on a college campus, where the Covid factories that are college students will go Did I just step into a time portal to 2022? Have you... been in a coma for the past several years? haha

In a town of big-name universities, where people are constantly coming and going from all around the world, and the reality of students living and socializing heavily, in cramped conditions, often with little sleep... Covid still seems to be "in the air". Most people no longer wear masks in stores here, but there are some. And some employees do as well. Including the person at/near the customer service desk of the gr…

meh if you don't have kids and really want to experience highly contagious viris then take a stroll through a day care. You'll be feeling symptoms before you get back to your car.

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

#537

Post by ux266478 »

moomoo11 wrote: post #464
rapnie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger point I wanted to make is how pervasively small social interactions with other people are automated away all across the board. At the McDonalds you go through the menu on the monitor at the entrance, or used your mobile. No social exchange at the counter anymore. In the cinema you do the same. AI is going to break the bonds online by indirect agent intermediaries. People become isolated in small in-groups.…

What genuine connections are you making waiting in line to get movie tickets and popcorn? Why not just walk to the theater to your seats and actually get excited for the movie? That ticket seller is doing their job and Gtfo. I think people are so doom and gloom about this stuff. Isn’t it better to just like go sit at the seats with your family or friends and enjoy the trailers and talk about the movie before it start…

The background noise that those social interactions constitute is valuable and important of itself. Bonded relationships are important, but it's a separate matter entirely. Otherwise relationships lived out over the internet would be equal and interchangeable with those lived out in person. It wouldn't matter if you talked to someone face-to-face or over email. The human experience shouldn't be picked apart piece meal with overrationalization and naive maximalism.

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

#538

Post by everly »

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...

I’m not familiar with any stores that have Jordans that can be purchased via self checkout.

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

#539

Post by AngryData »

gblargg wrote: post #101
AngryData wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure we should allow such premeditated charge stacking, it is just further weaponizing the law and fueling our prison industrial complex for zero gain to society. Who is to say many of those people wouldn't have stopped after being caught and charged the first time? Imagine if cops sat on the side of the road not pulling people over, just recording minor traffic offenses in a file, and then a year or so later…

I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.

I have yet to see any actual evidence of such a problem, just a bunch of outrage from social media commentators who also claim things like Portland was burnt to the ground by BLM and other hyper-exaggerated crap.

And even if it is true, I still don't see why premeditated charge stacking should be allowed. If someone comes into the store that they know will steal, they should be banned from the store and arrested for trespassing then and there. Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. Having 25% of the world prison population, along with all the costs that go along with it does not benefit us, it only hurts us. And it has repeatedly been shown that stiffer criminal charges do not prevent crime, if it did the US would be one of the safest 1st world countries, not the most dangerous 1st world country by a large margin that makes countries without actual functioning government seem peaceful.

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

#540

Post by pixl97 »

criddell wrote: post #534
pixl97 wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you could, but when walmart sees you walking out the door, they'll go trace your entire route and keep the film off of each of the cameras from entrance to exit of the store. They tend to put up a very good prosecution.

In the end though, unless they stop you and find the merchandise or have you on video with the stuff outside of the store, there's no proof you stole anything. It's circumstantial which is relatively weak. Plus, Walmart doesn't prosecute anybody. They hand the evidence over to the police and the the district attorney decides if they want to prosecute. Walmart can file a civil suit which I'm wondering if that's what t…

In that sense you're correct.

What Walmart can and does you at the time they file with the state is trespass you. Which counts for all Walmart stores and properties. That's where things like facial identification probably come back in so your caught the moment you walk in a store.

Trespass is very easy to prove.

Post reply on HN