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

561–570 of 627 posts

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

#561

Post by autoexec »

fyrabanks wrote: post #402
respondo2134 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was at a Whole Foods last year and was tired from driving for about 6hrs straight. I scanned one item, set up a paper bag on the right, and then mindlessly bagged every other item in my cart without scanning. I paid probably $3-4 on a $60 purchase. As soon as I got to the hotel and figured it out, I went back to correct the mistake--but imagine getting harassed or taken to the back for a careless error? I'm sure th…

The last time I forgot to scan something hiding the back of my cart I caught the mistake as I was leaving and ran to another self-checkout to scan the item. The one employee they had watching over at least 7 self checkout stations thanked me personally because apparently if the cameras caught the error the overworked employee would have been responsible and might have lost her job.

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

#562

Post by autoexec »

dml2135 wrote: post #491
lokar wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's funny that you mention CVS. I went to use the human checkout at CVS last time I was there because the line for self-checkout was so long, only to be told "in order to check out at this register, you need to have a CVS extra-care card". I no longer shop at CVS.

I also refuse to go into a CVS. They are trash. It's a shame there as so many more of them than walgreens.

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

#563

Post by op00to »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #466
tehwebguy wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe they just don’t want any violence in their stores at all? I will avoid shopping somewhere that has regular ass whoopings way more than I would avoid shopping somewhere with regular shoplifting.

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.

> just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely

Has this actually happened? Or are the chain pharmacies using “shrinkage” as a scapegoat for other deficiencies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that retail theft puts an appreciable dent in profits.

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

#564

Post by ux266478 »

moomoo11 wrote: post #551
ux266478 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mea…

Why not go straight to the movie and actually connect with people there? I don’t get it. You like having middlemen? lol

The point is that it's not about connection in the slightest. There's more to community than friendship.

> You like having middlemen?

Consider this, there still has to be someone to maintain that machine. What's the point then, exactly, except to pretend like the people around us don't exist? And just because they're not the closest people to us? I'm afraid I don't see the upside, actually.

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

#565

Post by ProllyInfamous »

krunck wrote: post #403
JKCalhoun wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is also CCTV AI (whether artificial intelligence, or actually indians) That's a new one. It's clever but I feel guilty having laughed.

Why guilty? The Indians are doing their job that stupid tech companies pay them for. The phrase has nothing to do with Indians but rather with unmasking the "AI washing" done by companies trying to drive up stock prices.

¿Por qué no los dos?

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

#566

Post by ProllyInfamous »

qingcharles wrote: post #445
bevhill wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's more complicated than this. I agree that prisons are literally useless in stopping criminal behavior, and almost certainly accelerate it for most. Prison is only scary the first day on your first bit. The second time you get locked up you already know the system, know all the staff and know all the other inmates. It's less of a deterrent each time. The issue is that a vast proportion of offenders aren't committi…

>prisons are literally useless in stopping criminal behavior

"Con College" — where you learn tricks of the trade, and further divide with racism / hatred.

>stealing ... [because] regular jobs aren't considered manly or cool.

This, but also too many lazier-mindset people think this will be an easy lifestyle to sustain long-term (it's not).

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

#567

Post by ProllyInfamous »

tutorialmanager wrote: post #533
bevhill wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is only a half-response, but I think one beneficial policy to increase food-access would be to remove regressive sales taxes from grocery purchases. Replace lost revenue with a progressive tax.

Several states tax a considerable amount on even basic foodstuffs (e.g. Tennessee).

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

#568

Post by frumplestlatz »

autoexec wrote: post #556
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.

The job of a security guard is to observe and report. Let the multi-billion dollar companies like walmart and home depot pay for actual law enforcement to be on hand when a security guard observes a suspected shoplifter. The security guard isn't paid enough or trained enough to get physical with customers.

Shopkeeper’s privilege exists as long-standing common law doctrine for a reason. No business should be forced to tolerate theft, or be forced to pay off-duty police officers to prevent it.

And no one is compelled to be a security guard; if the risks and pay don’t align, they’re free to walk away.

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

#569

Post by itake »

ryukoposting wrote: post #550
kube-system wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are individually slow but highly multithreaded. The single cashier that stores hire these days may have a 10% higher clock speed, but their queue length is high.

Sounds like the problem is that we aren't hiring enough cashiers. Using a Kroger self-checkout is tantamount to waterboarding. Hesitate for a quarter of a second before placing your item on the scale? Angry prompt. Put an item on the scanner (which itself is another scale) but it doesn't scan within half a second? Angry prompt. Get three angry prompts? Now you get a fourth angry prompt, except this one can only be di…

There are a few problems.

- Real estate: Self-checkout takes minimal floor space. Stores can fit ~10 stations in the area of 2 cashier lanes. Even if you hire more cashiers, there’s no room to add lanes.

- Demand vs. staffing: Checkout demand is dynamic, staffing is static. You can’t instantly add cashiers during a rush, and you don’t want them idle when it’s slow. Self-checkout stations are basically ~free to run.

- Cart size: Trader Joe’s works without self-checkout because their stores are small, carts are tiny, and checkouts max ~20 items. Their cashier lanes are smaller but occupy a bigger share of store space than Walmart or Kroger. In big stores with huge carts, no one wants to be stuck behind a full cart. Once you pick a lane, you’re locked in even if another line moves faster, whereas self checkout lanes are serviced by all machines.

But in the big stores with huge inventories, no one wants to wait behind a person with a huge cart and once you commit to a lane, you're stuck, even if someone else finishes faster.

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

#570

Post by frumplestlatz »

op00to wrote: post #563
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.

> just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely Has this actually happened? Or are the chain pharmacies using “shrinkage” as a scapegoat for other deficiencies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that retail theft puts an appreciable dent in profits.

I have a hard time imagining why they would close profitable stores otherwise. They’re generally not in the business of turning down profit.
Post reply on HN