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

581–590 of 627 posts

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

#581

Post by doctor_radium »

c22 wrote: post #423
doctor_radium wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NONE of the working self-checkouts accepted cash so I just walked out with empty hands. I'm pretty sure this is illegal. All businesses need to accept cash somewhere, somehow. I am curious what would happen if you forced the issue and announced to the attendant that you intend to pay in cash.

As far as I know this is not accurate. A business may be required to accept cash in order to settle an outstanding debt that it is owed, but I don't think anything prevents them from simply refusing to do business with you from the outset if you don't accept their payment terms.

You're right. And I'm surprised. There are states and cities that mandate a cash option, but most don't, including my own. I now side with the OP. There was a time I carried $50 around at all times to avoid being tracked by my card data, but then got lazy. Need to return to this habit.

The only store where I insist on paying cash is (maybe not surprisingly) Home Depot, because they have this odd, shameless practice of tying your in-store purchases with your web account, and sending emails in response. No thank you.

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

#582

Post by nobody9999 »

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 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.

Firstly, stores don't "press charges." A store may report a crime, but it is the state that "presses charges" and prosecutes alleged criminal activity, not the store.

Secondly, in the US, we have statutes of limitation[0] which limit the time in which criminal charges can be brought. These vary by state and by offense, but IIUC Petit (sometimes referred to as 'Petty') Theft usually has a one or two year statute of limitations.

I bring that up as, again IIUC, other countries (notably the UK) do not have such limitations.

IANAL, but I'm not sure if multiple petit thefts (usually misdemeanors) can be aggregated into a single charge of grand theft[0] (a felony). I'd expect that also varies by state. YMMV.

[0] Once again, this varies by state, but petit theft (larceny) is typically charged for stuff valued at less than $5,000.00, while grand larceny is for stuff valued at USD5,000.00 or more.

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

#583

Post by adamrezich »

stickfigure wrote: post #552
adamrezich wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory of urban/rural bifurcation is overly reductive. My city had a population of about 40,000 in the 70s (when guns were left in racks in the backs of trucks in the high school parking lot)—it's about twice that today. (I did however just return from visiting my wife's hometown in northern Idaho, which has a population of about 500, and indeed I did not feel the need to lock my car, despite keeping a firearm i…

> actual changes that transpired and the reasons for why they did Well go on then. Let's hear your theory out loud.

Feel free to assume whatever you'd like and ascribe whatever implicit outgroup labels you'd like as well.

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

#584

Post by theamk »

mattegan wrote: post #455
m463 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the beeping cameras in the tools aisle and frequently stop browsing and leave also locked cabinets... cause me to not buy whatever is in them.

Came here hoping someone would mention those absolutely cursed cameras - the ones with the pre-canned video of a guy in a back office "monitoring" the feeds? Gets to me the worst when I'm on my 3rd Home Depot trip of the day BEEP looking through a box of pipe fittings that is filled with everything _except_ the fitting matching the label on the box BEEP okay.. the Home Depot website says it's in stock at the one 20 m…

And yet, we keep going here...

There are fewer and fewer physical stores left that sell non-food for reasonable prices. Home Depot is often the only choice (at least in my area, the competitors, Lowes and Ace Hardwares, are more expensive, sell fewer things, and sometimes worse quality too)

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

#585

Post by oska »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #568
autoexec wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had never heard of 'shopkeeper's privilege' but looked it up [1] and yes, seems to be a real thing in the United States and nowhere else, according to a quick scan of that wiki article.

More evidence to me that the US was set up to serve corporatist interests over pretty much everything (and everyone) else. Why else provide shopkeepers with some special legal status? (Which again, they don't have in any other country.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege

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

#586

Post by bettyboo4 »

neilv wrote: post #78
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…

Less relevant, but reminds me of my all-time favorite grocery store LP encounter, near MIT. The chain was running this big promotion with lots of tear-open prize tickets that are either coupons or game board pieces, so I had been visiting often, to buy ramen noodles (one ticket per package!) and I had a small stack of coupons in my wallet. I was checking my coupons for this visit in the middle of a center aisle, and…

It’s common sense to avoid putting things in your pocket in stores. What’s with the creepy write up about this? You sound like you were going to spaz out and attack multiple people if this escalated. Why not simply open your backpack and show them what’s inside? A lot of MIT types look like they haven’t been outside in months , school shooter types , so I don’t get that analogy either.

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

#587

Post by EasyMark »

mothballed wrote: post #480
conradev wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you can use a reasonable amount of force to prevent people from taking property (or if you're acting as an agent thereof) in Texas. But still you can always be taken to civil court and be at the mercy of whatever judge. I imagine in San Francisco you will almost certainly lose to the criminal who was stealing something if you use any amount of force other than to defend yourself unless you're a cop

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

#588

Post by DaSHacka »

flir wrote: post #433
DaSHacka wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Child rapists and serial killers are also "my fellow man", yet we seem inclined as a society to assign labels ("criminal") and punishment for such actions.

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

#589

Post by DaSHacka »

everly wrote: post #538
DaSHacka wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#590

Post by inemesitaffia »

oska wrote: post #585
frumplestlatz wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had never heard of 'shopkeeper's privilege' but looked it up [1] and yes, seems to be a real thing in the United States and nowhere else, according to a quick scan of that wiki article. More evidence to me that the US was set up to serve corporatist interests over pretty much everything (and everyone) else. Why else provide shopkeepers with some special legal status? (Which again, they don't have in any other count…

Don't forget people used to live in shops and castle doctrine also applies
Post reply on HN