Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition • Hacker News Board

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#71

Post by yieldcrv » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 8:31 PM UTC

notaustinpowers wrote: post #61

yieldcrv wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep, I was pretty clear about that being a tolerable outcome of being barred from grocery stores from prior behavior as long as there is that alternative as opposed to no alternative (and as long as the accusations was accurate)

Then you and I have different views on what's considered tolerable in the wealthiest nation in the history of the Earth. I have no sympathy towards multi-billion dollar companies crying and implementing these ethically dubious systems over a human being stealing food for survival.

sure, I only compare it to an improvement over incarceration or getting fingers chopped off.

I’m in favor of private sector solutions in the absence of policing.

solutions that are even more tolerable when there are additional options, as I mentioned above. if there was a real denial of service I would find that as egregious as you do.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#72

Post by omniglottal » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

armchairhacker wrote: post #45

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #9

This is conflicting, on one hand it's certainty within the right of a store to bar people who shoplift, it's really an imperative to do so. The petty crime issue the retailers here are trying to counter is a real one. But this application it feels like falling down an increasingly slippery slope. Sure, today, it's just "send an alert and the store can do what it wants" but how long until that transforms into a de fac…

Some ways to make the system better: - Allow the accused to repay the sale price of whatever they're accused of shoplifting (or possibly even a discount) to remove the charge. There's no harm done, and nobody's banned from every store because nobody's truly banned from any store - If someone can't afford repayment, provide work or community service as an alternative. I know this is unfair to poor people effectively f…

Here's an option - apply the constitutional privilege to trial by jury and let Law Enforcement have a monopoly on enforcing laws.

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#73

Post by josephcsible » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

crummy wrote: post #56

josephcsible wrote: post #15

I wish we could get rid of this system by getting rid of the demand for it. Stores wouldn't need things like this if career shoplifters got sent to prison.

The article mentions many of these shoplifters are stealing things like nappies. Sending them to prison might mean the state has to take care of the kids.

Isn't it really common for people to steal diapers to resell rather than because they have kids who need them?

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#74

Post by xethos » Sat, Jul 01, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

juujian wrote: post #19

toolz wrote: post #3

Society is going to have a hard learned lesson on how badly false positives with punishment systems destroys community trust. It doesn't take but a few unjustly punished folks exacting revenge on the systems that hurt them to quickly polarize and disrupt communities.

I have my doubt. Store security still has the leeway to decide what action to take. I suspect they will treat a false positive different when it is a guy in suit and tie vs. someone you would suspect of shoplifting based on a sloppier appearance. If facial recognition just aids the abuse of the poor it won't result in any backlash whatsoever.

> Store security still has the leeway to decide what action to take

> But while the technology had correctly identified the woman, it did not leave much room for human discretion. Neither Facewatch nor the store where the incident occurred contacted her to let her know that she was on the watchlist and to ask what had happened.

How long do you think your statement will stand?

Re: Barred from Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

#75

Post by moolcool » Sat, Jul 01, 2023, 3:52 AM UTC

geodel wrote: post #36

moolcool wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't conflicting, it's just shit. This has no place in a free society, and I have zero time for any arguments to the contrary. Technology has all the promise in the world to improve and enrich our lives, but instead it's turning our world into a digital panopticon where we're constantly tracked and targeted. I'll bet you any money that this tech is going to be used for advertising as well, if it isn't already.

Yeah, society is not really free until it gives free grocery supplies to every one.

There’s a difference between saying “theft is ok” and “this is an unethical means of preventing theft”