Home Depot sued for 'secretly' using facial recognition at self-checkouts • Hacker News Board

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

#621

Post by conductr » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 4:36 AM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #465

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…

> also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state). Costco can't enforce the receipt check, but they can terminate your membership - but that's only because they're a membered organization in the first place.

I've heard this but also I've never shopped there

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

#622

Post by poulsbohemian » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 5:20 AM UTC

1659447091 wrote: post #559

lostlogin wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me If you ever visit Texas take a look around the entrances to stores, shops, restaurants, bars etc. You should see large white signs with a "gun-buster" and a 30.0* code. or a large "51%" symbol in red. It would be incredibly rare to see a person with an open carry gun thou 30.05 is to tell people that "constitutional carry" (carry with…

If I'm understanding this correctly then, ultra-conservative Texas has more local regulation on open carry than ultra-progressive Washington?

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

#623

Post by mothballed » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

poulsbohemian wrote: post #622

1659447091 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me If you ever visit Texas take a look around the entrances to stores, shops, restaurants, bars etc. You should see large white signs with a "gun-buster" and a 30.0* code. or a large "51%" symbol in red. It would be incredibly rare to see a person with an open carry gun thou 30.05 is to tell people that "constitutional carry" (carry with…

If I'm understanding this correctly then, ultra-conservative Texas has more local regulation on open carry than ultra-progressive Washington?

The restrictions on unlicensed open carry of a loaded weapon in a vehicle alone makes the Washington regulation way more of a hassle than in in Texas, although they both have location restrictions.

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

#624

Post by whatamidoingyo » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 3:06 PM UTC

HankStallone wrote: post #406

dml2135 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting rid of checkout clerks, forcing customers to use self-checkout, and then surveilling and policing said customers to make sure that the unpaid labor they are now performing is done flawlessly is just so dystopic. IMO, if you want to have self-checkout, you need to accept a higher rate of loss. That's the tradeoff for replacing your employees with robots and forcing labor onto the consumer. You can't have your…

The small-town Dollar General I visit turned the second, usually-idle checkout lane into a self-checkout about a year ago. A few months later, they turned it off and haven't used it since. I suspect it just didn't make sense to have an employee outside smoking or sitting in the break room scrolling on a phone while the customers went through and maybe paid for their goods, when that employee could simply run the chec…

> A few months later, they turned it off and haven't used it since.

I've been to like 4 different Dollar Generals in the last year. Every single one of them had the self checkout turned off.

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

#625

Post by 1659447091 » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

poulsbohemian wrote: post #622

1659447091 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me If you ever visit Texas take a look around the entrances to stores, shops, restaurants, bars etc. You should see large white signs with a "gun-buster" and a 30.0* code. or a large "51%" symbol in red. It would be incredibly rare to see a person with an open carry gun thou 30.05 is to tell people that "constitutional carry" (carry with…

If I'm understanding this correctly then, ultra-conservative Texas has more local regulation on open carry than ultra-progressive Washington?

The 30.0* signs are basically “no trespassing” sign that property owners (stores shops buildings etc) may elect to refuse entry to persons in various modes of carry. Most commonly will allow people to conceal carry with a license. Most places (in mid-large cities) don’t want people walking around openly carrying a gun in their place of business.

The 51% is alcohol & guns don’t go well together. Conservative Texas would probably like to do away with alcohol altogether, they still only allows beer & wine sales on Sunday and only because Sunday Football. Liquor bottles can only be bought at liquor stores (except on sunday). Unlike California where you can pick up some Johnnie & Jameson with school supplies and toilet paper before church.

Most regulations are on when and how you use the firearm. Having a LTC means you have a little more forgiveness for trespassing because the signs were hidden behind the door or plants etc. Constitutional carry will still be charged. But LTC has more penalties for misuse, such as brandishing to intimidate carries greater penalties

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

#626

Post by advisedwang » Thu, Aug 28, 2025, 5:34 PM UTC

horseradish7k wrote: post #592

advisedwang wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one find out whether Home Depot is merely detecting faces or storing biometrics? Answer: File a lawsuit and use discovery to find out.

this means you're guilty until proven otherwise, does it not?

No, it means courts can be used to find out if someone is guilty.

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

#627

Post by underlipton » Fri, Aug 29, 2025, 6:39 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #518

underlipton wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe we should have max enforcement in both? You can't, resources are limited. >Shoplifting and other merchandise loss has exploded. I don't know that that's true. Shoplifting was down in most cities compared to pre-pandemic levels. https://counciloncj.org/shoplifting-trends-what-you-need-to-...

>You can't, resources are limited. Regulatory authorities and courts enforce against wage theft. Shoplifting enforcement is mostly up to businesses. >Shoplifting was down in most cities compared to pre-pandemic levels. Shoplifting reports to police were down in some cities (albeit up in others), but that doesn't necessarily track the actual data. https://nrf.com/media-center/press-releases/shoplifting-inci...

>Regulatory authorities and courts enforce against wage theft. Shoplifting enforcement is mostly up to businesses.

Wildly naive and incorrect. Wage theft enforcement is limited by access to government labor rights protection resources and legal counsel, and usually just the first. Even simply filing a claim against shoplifting losses, let alone pursuing criminal prosecution, requires getting law enforcement involved. In all cases, you're waiting on authorities to involve themselves and sign off on outcomes. Time and resources put towards one incident are being kept from being applied to another.

>but that doesn't necessarily track the actual data.

That's not the actual data.

The NRF are a notoriously poor and biased source to rely on for this subject.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/07/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-...