Many Americans not aware of being tracked with facial recognition while shopping(techradar.com)
techradar.com
Many Americans not aware of being tracked with facial recognition while shopping
https://www.techradar.com/news/many-americans-arent-aware-theyre-being-tracked-with-facial-recognition-while-shopping
368 comments
One other thing people may not realize. If you use your credit card at a merchant online or in person and you associate any information such as a telephone number or email with that card. Any time you use that card, online or off, to make a purchase with that merchant those transactions can be tied together regardless of whether you provide your email/phone on future transactions. Large vendors such as walmart etc now associate that phone/email and card(s) with your facial recognition information. The second you walk into the store based on your face they can pull up your entire purchase history and contact. They are now crunching that data to improve retail layouts, marketing pitches, etc and there is growing market of selling aggregates of that data across merchants.
Then why does it take the sales person at Macy's 15 minutes to look up my order before giving up and just giving me a refund for a poorly fitting sweater I brought back?
Customer support is a cost center, so it gets less funding than sales/marketing-oriented projects
(route-optimizing here likely has the intention of boosting sales, not necessarily reducing customer shopping time)
(route-optimizing here likely has the intention of boosting sales, not necessarily reducing customer shopping time)
Yes. There’s a reason some of the most often needed groceries are almost always at the back of a supermarket.
Yes, because that's where the refrigerated warehouse is usually located: in the back of the store, to make it easier and cheaper to restock shelves from behind. By comparison, at least in the US, green groceries are almost never in the back of the store.
I don't understand "cost center". Everything is a cost center except the part where you physically acquire the money. Surely both marketing and customer service are invested money that hopefully increases your customer base down the line? What's the difference?
I suspect the real reason that the panopticon is kept separate from the customer is to avoid creeping people out.
I suspect the real reason that the panopticon is kept separate from the customer is to avoid creeping people out.
For Macy's, the 15 minutes you were forced to spend inside the store is a feature, not a bug.
That makes sense! It also takes several minutes just to get someone's attention at the makeup counter or to find a sales person to sell me a bath towel.
Is it? That's 15 minutes of a customer not spending money, and 15 minutes of a staff person dedicated to giving back money to a customer, rather than generating more revenue.
I get that its considered a feature to get them into a store, but surely you don't want to optimise for associates not selling things?
I get that its considered a feature to get them into a store, but surely you don't want to optimise for associates not selling things?
>Is it? That's 15 minutes of a customer not spending money, and 15 minutes of a staff person dedicated to giving back money to a customer, rather than generating more revenue.
That would be true if the customer service area was isolated inside an empty boring room, but at Macy's, it's out in the open on the store floor and surrounded by merchandise. Waiting in a boring line means eyes that wander to adjacent displays and stands.
That would be true if the customer service area was isolated inside an empty boring room, but at Macy's, it's out in the open on the store floor and surrounded by merchandise. Waiting in a boring line means eyes that wander to adjacent displays and stands.
Well, making returns painful leads to less returns, to a certain logic. But it surely also leads to less sales, so I'm not sure which effect is greater.
WAI. They recognized you, and wanted to you spend more time in the store. /s
Because Macy's is a dinosaur living in its last days.
I think the ultimate cause of this kind of inconsistency is that the panopticon-style correlation of customer data is happening offline in a business intelligence system that has a one-way, stale data feed from various ETLs, while making a return happens in an online system that doesn't get anything back from the analytics system (because the analytics data is too loosely structured and low-quality to feed it back into a line of business system).
This kind of dichotomy exists in just about any organization that gets into BI/data science/whatever you want to call it, and it can be absolutely maddening. The state of ETLs and analytics systems, for example, means that we have basically gone back to "overnight batch processing" and a lot of reporting data only becomes available the day after the transaction, since all the ETLs need to run and then whatever analytics system, data-cube assembly or etc. But since the analytics system exists, it is taken as good enough and no one wants to re-implement the functionality in an online, system-of-record fashion.
Or another way to put it: the GP says "The second you walk into the store based on your face they can pull up your entire purchase history and contact." That's being pretty generous... most of the time they don't know any of that until an hour or a day later, because it comes from multiple disparate systems (and outside vendors) and importing that data into a data warehouse (in batches) and then correlating it later is far easier to implement, and the dominant method used in this kind of analytics.
This kind of dichotomy exists in just about any organization that gets into BI/data science/whatever you want to call it, and it can be absolutely maddening. The state of ETLs and analytics systems, for example, means that we have basically gone back to "overnight batch processing" and a lot of reporting data only becomes available the day after the transaction, since all the ETLs need to run and then whatever analytics system, data-cube assembly or etc. But since the analytics system exists, it is taken as good enough and no one wants to re-implement the functionality in an online, system-of-record fashion.
Or another way to put it: the GP says "The second you walk into the store based on your face they can pull up your entire purchase history and contact." That's being pretty generous... most of the time they don't know any of that until an hour or a day later, because it comes from multiple disparate systems (and outside vendors) and importing that data into a data warehouse (in batches) and then correlating it later is far easier to implement, and the dominant method used in this kind of analytics.
Why improve the service when you make purchases anyway? No unnecessary optimizations. Aggregated data is valuable and it is sold to any other industry. Helps with the slim margins of retail. They also get more pictures of you.
Because Macy’s may be going out of business like JC Penny’s and Dillards.
okay... i'll bite:
how does one use a card online without providing phone or email?
I don't know if this actually makes things better or worse - I do it in the hope I can shut down spam by removing a compromised address - but I try very hard to use a different email address for every business I purchase from.
You don't always have to provide a phone number, either. Most of the time yes, but I don't think the phone number is actually required to complete a credit card transaction.
There also used to be credit providers - maybe there still are? - that would let you generate a new card number for each purchase. That too may accomplish nothing from a tracking perspective, since the credit provider would be able to match up all the numbers. But, if I had that capability, I would use it.
You don't always have to provide a phone number, either. Most of the time yes, but I don't think the phone number is actually required to complete a credit card transaction.
There also used to be credit providers - maybe there still are? - that would let you generate a new card number for each purchase. That too may accomplish nothing from a tracking perspective, since the credit provider would be able to match up all the numbers. But, if I had that capability, I would use it.
There's this one:
https://privacy.com
Apple Card does as well (and Apple Pay in general with any other card).
https://privacy.com
Apple Card does as well (and Apple Pay in general with any other card).
Bank of America stopped doing virtual credit card numbers a few years ago.
I think Citibank allows you to do it, but I have no personal experience or knowledge.
I have a card from Capital One that allows virtual credit card numbers.
Privacy.com is a service specifically for this issue. It allows you to generate lots of virtual cards and even use fake names so you can't be tracked so easily.
I think Citibank allows you to do it, but I have no personal experience or knowledge.
I have a card from Capital One that allows virtual credit card numbers.
Privacy.com is a service specifically for this issue. It allows you to generate lots of virtual cards and even use fake names so you can't be tracked so easily.
I have once had a phone call about an online purchase telling me I had to pay extra taxes for the import.
Obviously you can't but the point people don't realize is that if you use that same card in store the merchant can link it back to online purchases you made and all your information which they can then package and sell to data brokers.
There are credit card services that provide some privacy, such as proxies: I've heard of Abine, Privacy, and something called Final, but I haven't looked into them.
I try to use Offset credit when possible - yet only with nerd friends
you can't
> The second you walk into the store based on your face they can pull up your entire purchase history and contact. They are now crunching that data to improve retail layouts, marketing pitches, etc and there is growing market of selling aggregates of that data across merchants.
Super interesting, is there public information about this? Are you are saying they are using customer identity for sample weighting to debias and improve the precision of experiments?
Super interesting, is there public information about this? Are you are saying they are using customer identity for sample weighting to debias and improve the precision of experiments?
This to me is part of a general trend wherein only those with the awareness and resources required will have privacy.
For example, if you do have the funds, send a private shopper. But an even more direct example is skipping the discounts associated with club cards for privacy reasons.
This will further entrench the class divide between the wealthy and the rest of us.
For example, if you do have the funds, send a private shopper. But an even more direct example is skipping the discounts associated with club cards for privacy reasons.
This will further entrench the class divide between the wealthy and the rest of us.
The industrial revolution divided the world into those who had capital (owned factories, tools, land, etc.) and those who produced labor (worked in the factories, used the tools, worked the land, etc.). Those on the side of labor couldn't provide value without access to capital where it could be used. Conversely, those with capital need labor to extract value from it. The factories don't run themselves.
In theory, this would balance out and lead towards some level of equality. In practice, the high barrier of entrance and smaller numbers on the side of capital made it much easier for them to drive down labor prices and exploit. That led to massive inequality—think robber barons and the like—which in turn eventually led to the organized labor movement.
We are now recapitulating this historic arc in the information revolution. Now the world is divided into those who own data and those who produce it. Large corporations own giant fields of data and the computing technology required to derive actionable information from it. Everyone else gives up their personal data and attention to feed those enormous machines. This has led to the growing inequality that is causing a breakdown in institutional trust and is driving people out of cities that are increasingly affordable only to the elites who run the data factories.
At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data movement" where people work together to be able to make effective demands about how their data can be harvested and used. We aren't there yet.
In theory, this would balance out and lead towards some level of equality. In practice, the high barrier of entrance and smaller numbers on the side of capital made it much easier for them to drive down labor prices and exploit. That led to massive inequality—think robber barons and the like—which in turn eventually led to the organized labor movement.
We are now recapitulating this historic arc in the information revolution. Now the world is divided into those who own data and those who produce it. Large corporations own giant fields of data and the computing technology required to derive actionable information from it. Everyone else gives up their personal data and attention to feed those enormous machines. This has led to the growing inequality that is causing a breakdown in institutional trust and is driving people out of cities that are increasingly affordable only to the elites who run the data factories.
At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data movement" where people work together to be able to make effective demands about how their data can be harvested and used. We aren't there yet.
> The industrial revolution divided the world into those who had capital (owned factories, tools, land, etc.) and those who produced labor (worked in the factories, used the tools, worked the land, etc.).
Don't be silly. The world was divided long before the Industrial Revolution, and if "labor" was ever on top of things, it was for fleeting moments. What changed with the Industrial Revolution was the collection of economic power in the hands of a mere titan of industry — instead of some baron, or prince, or caesar, or warlord, or chieftan, or other political personage.
Don't be silly. The world was divided long before the Industrial Revolution, and if "labor" was ever on top of things, it was for fleeting moments. What changed with the Industrial Revolution was the collection of economic power in the hands of a mere titan of industry — instead of some baron, or prince, or caesar, or warlord, or chieftan, or other political personage.
Very true. We are witnessing how a new aristocracy is being built. This time it’s not based on skills in warfare but around business skills. But the result is the same: you have a small group who thinks they are better than others and deserve to receive the vast majority of the profits society creates. And they manipulate the game to their advantage.
This seems to happen in all societies until a revolution happens and the cycle starts anew just with different actors.
This seems to happen in all societies until a revolution happens and the cycle starts anew just with different actors.
We are going though iterations of societies/empires/cultures. Each round has the same issues but we get to learn from- and bring solutions from the previous one. The collective is much stronger than influential individuals but there has to be a collective will to change the game. It seems to me that we are more humanitarian than many previous cycles but I'm afraid we wont show much of an interest in [epic] game design until things get truly terrible. (Cheran pops to mind: That Mexican town of 16k that got rid of police, politicians and mobsters)
This time we did get game design down to an art with fine mechanics and cheap execution. Perhaps someone with a sharp pen can draw the parallels for us. Surely (if the will is there) it is easy to design something better than the stupid formula where we pretend Personal gain = Collective gain.
This time we did get game design down to an art with fine mechanics and cheap execution. Perhaps someone with a sharp pen can draw the parallels for us. Surely (if the will is there) it is easy to design something better than the stupid formula where we pretend Personal gain = Collective gain.
“until things get truly terrible. “
That’s the sad part. Big change seems to require a big disruptive event like war or revolution.
But i agree that things seem to get better overall. Unfortunately there are plenty of downs in between and these can last many years.
That’s the sad part. Big change seems to require a big disruptive event like war or revolution.
But i agree that things seem to get better overall. Unfortunately there are plenty of downs in between and these can last many years.
For what it's worth, I didn't say the world was not divided before the industrial revolution. I just said what lines it became divided along after it.
Before, because of the agricultural revolution, it was divided primarily along lines of land ownership and the familiar inheritance of that.
Before, because of the agricultural revolution, it was divided primarily along lines of land ownership and the familiar inheritance of that.
[deleted]
Oligarchy is as old as civilization. A roman senator was just as beholden to a major olive oil producer 2000 years ago as an American senator to a major oil producer today.
The division happened when transitioning from hunter gatherers (which didn't need possessions, just hard work) to agriculture, where land became a prized possession.
> The division happened when transitioning from hunter gatherers (which didn't need possessions, just hard work)
I am sure hunter gatherer societies were also very territorial. If the area you are hunting or gathering does doesn’t have much animals or plants, all the hard work won’t get you nearly as much food as someone who has a lot of plants and animals on their land.
And if you don’t think early humans were territorial just take a look at chimpanzees or even lions. Being tribal and territorial goes back a long ways.
I am sure hunter gatherer societies were also very territorial. If the area you are hunting or gathering does doesn’t have much animals or plants, all the hard work won’t get you nearly as much food as someone who has a lot of plants and animals on their land.
And if you don’t think early humans were territorial just take a look at chimpanzees or even lions. Being tribal and territorial goes back a long ways.
Different ages, different divisions, different criterion.
1500 years ago those who could hoard land and power and influence after the fall of the Western Roman Empire went into decline formed the kernel the feudal aristocracy. But those who were able to capitalize on the merchant and industrial revolutions starting 500 years ago, and the rise of global capitalism, became the kernel of the bourgeoisie in the modern era.
We'll see what happens next.
1500 years ago those who could hoard land and power and influence after the fall of the Western Roman Empire went into decline formed the kernel the feudal aristocracy. But those who were able to capitalize on the merchant and industrial revolutions starting 500 years ago, and the rise of global capitalism, became the kernel of the bourgeoisie in the modern era.
We'll see what happens next.
> At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data movement" where people work together to be able to make effective demands about how their data can be harvested and used. We aren't there yet.
The GDPR comes along, and HN hated it
The GDPR comes along, and HN hated it
This may actually close the class divide a little.
The thing with privacy is the more wealthy you are, the more valuable it is. For example, if I want to sell something, I will want to target the wealthiest first. Same thing for scammers, and newspapers will follow celebrities. Who care about the poor, there is no money to extract from them.
So let's get back to the private shopper. A rich and famous man will want to hire a private shopper, because he knows that if he is found in a shop, he will be bothered by people who are after his money and fame. His privacy is worth a lot, to him and to others.
The private shopper is likely to be of a more modest status, he can go shopping without being bothered, he may be tracked by robots and end up with personalized ads, be part of some statistics, whatever, but no one will stop him for an autograph or some special favor.
So when the rich man pays the private shopper, with a little extra for his discretion, that's resources that go from the wealthy to the "rest of us".
The same can be said for loyalty cards. The one who can afford not to use loyalty card will earn the shop more profit (because no discount), meaning that it can offer bigger discounts to others.
It is as if a unit of privacy is proportional to your wealth. The amount of privacy a rich man will get by paying $1000, a poor man can get it for $1. In the same way that it is much cheaper to secure a penny than a gold bar, because no one will want to steal your penny.
The thing with privacy is the more wealthy you are, the more valuable it is. For example, if I want to sell something, I will want to target the wealthiest first. Same thing for scammers, and newspapers will follow celebrities. Who care about the poor, there is no money to extract from them.
So let's get back to the private shopper. A rich and famous man will want to hire a private shopper, because he knows that if he is found in a shop, he will be bothered by people who are after his money and fame. His privacy is worth a lot, to him and to others.
The private shopper is likely to be of a more modest status, he can go shopping without being bothered, he may be tracked by robots and end up with personalized ads, be part of some statistics, whatever, but no one will stop him for an autograph or some special favor.
So when the rich man pays the private shopper, with a little extra for his discretion, that's resources that go from the wealthy to the "rest of us".
The same can be said for loyalty cards. The one who can afford not to use loyalty card will earn the shop more profit (because no discount), meaning that it can offer bigger discounts to others.
It is as if a unit of privacy is proportional to your wealth. The amount of privacy a rich man will get by paying $1000, a poor man can get it for $1. In the same way that it is much cheaper to secure a penny than a gold bar, because no one will want to steal your penny.
> The one who can afford not to use loyalty card will earn the shop more profit (because no discount), meaning that it can offer bigger discounts to others.
I don't use loyalty cards, but I don't pay more because of it. There still exist stores that don't have them, and my observation is that the regular prices on those stores are about the same as the "loyalty card discount" price at other stores.
The "discount" you're getting with a loyalty card is a sham. The regular prices were just bumped up to give the illusion of a discount.
More to the point, though, the issue I see with your analysis is that you're assuming that privacy has a single value. My privacy is worth just as much to me as a wealthy person's privacy is to them. That others value them differently is unimportant. The cost of the loss of that privacy is the same regardless of income, but only the wealthy have a way to minimize that loss without going to extreme measures.
I don't use loyalty cards, but I don't pay more because of it. There still exist stores that don't have them, and my observation is that the regular prices on those stores are about the same as the "loyalty card discount" price at other stores.
The "discount" you're getting with a loyalty card is a sham. The regular prices were just bumped up to give the illusion of a discount.
More to the point, though, the issue I see with your analysis is that you're assuming that privacy has a single value. My privacy is worth just as much to me as a wealthy person's privacy is to them. That others value them differently is unimportant. The cost of the loss of that privacy is the same regardless of income, but only the wealthy have a way to minimize that loss without going to extreme measures.
Many of the stores I've been to give the cashiers a "store" card that they just swipe if you don't have one (even if you've never signed up.) It probably violates some corporate policy but they seem to get away with it.
> The amount of privacy a rich man will get by paying $1000, a poor man can get it for $1
No, privacy is not autographs. Thats not how this works.
The rich man is paying a private shopper to use the PS's face in the facial recognition system and card tracking system. the PS gets the ads, but not the rich man. The rich man's habits are still tracked (by proxy, assuming PS doesn't shop personally at same store). At best, the rich man gets his habits co-mingled with PS to get slightly higher anonymity.
> The same can be said for loyalty cards. The one who can afford not to use loyalty card will earn the shop more profit (because no discount), meaning that it can offer bigger discounts to others.
Hmm makes sense at face level, but why would stores offer discounts to their worst customers? My credit card offers discount to those who spend 10k+ on private jets presumably because those people outspend enough to justify the cost
No, privacy is not autographs. Thats not how this works.
The rich man is paying a private shopper to use the PS's face in the facial recognition system and card tracking system. the PS gets the ads, but not the rich man. The rich man's habits are still tracked (by proxy, assuming PS doesn't shop personally at same store). At best, the rich man gets his habits co-mingled with PS to get slightly higher anonymity.
> The same can be said for loyalty cards. The one who can afford not to use loyalty card will earn the shop more profit (because no discount), meaning that it can offer bigger discounts to others.
Hmm makes sense at face level, but why would stores offer discounts to their worst customers? My credit card offers discount to those who spend 10k+ on private jets presumably because those people outspend enough to justify the cost
It's called price segmentation. Make the same product available at multiple price tiers, but make the lower prices more time consuming and difficult to get. Clip a coupon, file a rebate, join a club. Then you get the best of both worlds, you extract a maximum price from well to do shoppers but have an optional price that still attracts the bargain hunters.
Often same product with a different price sits on the same shelf in a supermarket. Some (most, in fact) people will buy a costlier version, because they can afford to pay more for (perceived) better quality.
> Who care about the poor, there is no money to extract from them.
There is plenty, just ask all the MLM companies, dollar stores, and payday lenders
There is plenty, just ask all the MLM companies, dollar stores, and payday lenders
> But an even more direct example is skipping the discounts associated with club cards for privacy reasons.
Right, but most still pay with a credit/debit card when checking out which gives the cc/bank the same info. At least with a store club card they only know what you purchase in that store/chain, instead of every store.
Right, but most still pay with a credit/debit card when checking out which gives the cc/bank the same info. At least with a store club card they only know what you purchase in that store/chain, instead of every store.
> Right, but most still pay with a credit/debit card when checking out which gives the cc/bank the same info.
Yes, which is why I think cash is crucial until/if we get a digital equivalent.
> At least with a store club card they only know what you purchase in that store/chain, instead of every store
I haven't done research to confirm, but I'm guessing club card data ends up in the hands of data brokers at some point. Of course this probably varies by chain.
Yes, which is why I think cash is crucial until/if we get a digital equivalent.
> At least with a store club card they only know what you purchase in that store/chain, instead of every store
I haven't done research to confirm, but I'm guessing club card data ends up in the hands of data brokers at some point. Of course this probably varies by chain.
There will never be a state sanctioned privacy enabling digital cash equivalent since the data surrounding transactions is far too valuable (both in a monetary sense and in a social control sense).
I'm sure the phrase "digital cash" will be used in the marketing lingo though
I'm sure the phrase "digital cash" will be used in the marketing lingo though
I agree. I like Monero, but it will never be state sanctioned. I don't much care for the state.
I bet if I asked the people I know (many who earn enough to not need the discounts) if they would rather spend 1% less on their groceries and let go of their grocery purchase data, or if they would spend 1% more and keep their purchase history private, almost everyone would choose to voluntarily give it up and spend 1% less.
Now imagine if that number is 5%+ -> i'm sure many many people would give it up!
I'm guessing this is why many grocery stores don't allow NFC payments, except for (in my area at least) Safeway, whose non-club pricing is so punitive that most people just knuckle under and get the card.
Though I just use 867-5309 anyway. Works in every area code, AFAICT.
Though I just use 867-5309 anyway. Works in every area code, AFAICT.
I was at a self-checkout recently that required a store rewards membership to checkout at. I tried 867-5309 but form validation required both a phone number and a last name.
I guess retailers are catching on.
I guess retailers are catching on.
I know it's not exactly a last name, but... did you try the "standard" name for that number? I can't imagine nobody else thought of signing up like that, so unless the store explicitly blacklisted certain numbers, I'd think it worth a shot.
Can you not just make a fake account?
That David Smithee sure does buy a lot of stuff all over the UK :D .
"Forgot card" often works too!
That's good to know. Another trick I used to use was just to tell the cashier that I forgot my card, and she'd grab a spare and swipe it. Then they started doing phone numbers, so that probably doesn't work as well now.
$local_area_code-867-5309 is almost always registered. No reason to sign up for your own card.
Jenny, is that you?
How do NFC payments relate to it?
Then your private shopper gets tracked. It’s just a pointer to your actual self, like how a “ghost account” gets created on Facebook or Google, when you browse in incognito
I don't see the inherent dilemma without establishing the impact towards quality of life. The price of yachts also entrenches this same divide but I hardly care since my access to yahts isn't a big concern. In the same manner, the only people whose QoL suffers from this sort of disparity seems to be activists and the people who buy into their fearmongering. Where's the real damage?
I believe even with resources it won’t be possible to evade that.
Gait recognition can even recognize a person that pretends to walk like a different person or being hurt - at least that is what I heard last time about this technology.
[deleted]
Why should I care to keep what I buy at the grocery store private?
I'm not trying to be flippant with this question. I'm just honestly perplexed why this is an important dateset to keep private.
Also, why would I want to avoid discounts? Grocery stores are one of the few places that gives me money for handing them my data. Isn't this good behavior!?
I'm not trying to be flippant with this question. I'm just honestly perplexed why this is an important dateset to keep private.
Also, why would I want to avoid discounts? Grocery stores are one of the few places that gives me money for handing them my data. Isn't this good behavior!?
In many ways it’s a prisoners dilemma problem. We can contrive many particular cases where your individual data might put you at risk, but the fundamental problem is that broadly having access to many people’s data allows the people who hold that data to do analysis on it and to have enormous levels of control over the population because they can carefully tune their actions and messaging based on that data.
Ultimately your individual data is far less important than the aggregate data for making these decisions- and you are impacted regardless of whether your personal data is available or not.
The question is whether or not we could get people to collectively act in their own self interest and push back against data collection. Based on what we’ve seen over the last 2 years with the pandemic I have absolutely no hope for humanity ever being able to collectively act in its self interest and the road to hell will be paved with people asking “how does it hurt me, personally, right now”.
Ultimately your individual data is far less important than the aggregate data for making these decisions- and you are impacted regardless of whether your personal data is available or not.
The question is whether or not we could get people to collectively act in their own self interest and push back against data collection. Based on what we’ve seen over the last 2 years with the pandemic I have absolutely no hope for humanity ever being able to collectively act in its self interest and the road to hell will be paved with people asking “how does it hurt me, personally, right now”.
What you buy at a grocery store can reveal a lot about you:
- Personal care products: gender
- Medications: age/health of you and family members
- Magazines/media: political affiliation, social class
The list goes on.
[Edit: formatting]
- Personal care products: gender
- Medications: age/health of you and family members
- Magazines/media: political affiliation, social class
The list goes on.
[Edit: formatting]
This always reminds me of the anecdote of Target predicting pregnant customers and "outing" them before they or their family knows [1].
Really makes one consider using cash.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
Really makes one consider using cash.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
>before they or their family knows
To be clear, it is before their family knows and not before they know. It is extremely difficult to figure out someone is pregnant before they know. It doesn't take any complex analysis to see someone purchasing prenatal vitamins and conclude they are pregnant.
To be clear, it is before their family knows and not before they know. It is extremely difficult to figure out someone is pregnant before they know. It doesn't take any complex analysis to see someone purchasing prenatal vitamins and conclude they are pregnant.
Yes, you can infer a lot based on grocery store purchases. I don't deny it - but why does it matter?
What bad things have happened to the average person based on grocery store purchase history?
Again, i'm not trying to be flippant with my questions I'm honestly just frustrated after decades of following privacy discussions that there isn't a clear answer to this question.
What bad things have happened to the average person based on grocery store purchase history?
Again, i'm not trying to be flippant with my questions I'm honestly just frustrated after decades of following privacy discussions that there isn't a clear answer to this question.
For example, a person with diabetes or other serious condition gets denied a good job because the company run a background check and saw such and such purchases. Medical data is protected for this reason (HIPAA, etc.) but all other data isn't.
I wonder this too, but perhaps your insurance company buys this data on you and says, oh, they drink sugary drinks and eat candy and chips. They are buying Tylenol and ibuprofen for chronic pain. Maybe they will get diabetes and we should raise their premiums accordingly.
I don't mean to rag on you in particular. The answers I get around privacy problems are always conjecture. "Perhaps" the insurance company will do x, "Maybe" they will do y.
It's always some scary threat that could happen in the future. The problem is though that the powers that be (government/corporate) already have more private information than ever before and yet: nothing has happened.
At what point do these warnings just become crying wolf?
It's always some scary threat that could happen in the future. The problem is though that the powers that be (government/corporate) already have more private information than ever before and yet: nothing has happened.
At what point do these warnings just become crying wolf?
The data is already being used in various ways that people would object to, it's just that nobody who is using data in objectionable ways is announcing it from their rooftops, because they know it's objectionable and want to keep doing it.
Insurance companies DO buy data like this. It is not perhaps. They buy data about you that they do not use to your advantage. They have no interest in lowering your premiums and every interest in raising them.
One other example is the 2016 election and cambridge analytica. Not going to make a political case on the politicians, but the political parties (and foreign govs with interest in the outcome) bought data on electors to try and persuade them to vote for one candidate or the other. Or to make them think issue X is bigger deal than they previously did. People don't like to lose autonomy in politics and data is good for targeting and persuasion.
Of course, the big what-if is also worrisome. Maybe not to you, but to many. Some people are more concerned than others. If your of one minority religion, then you might worry if that religion gets targeted will gov buy data to identify individuals (eg china and Uyghurs or trump and his proposed list of muslums). Maybe your gay in a nation that isn't friendly to that. Its very easy to tell if someone is queer from mass collected data. That could be a concern if the gov starts looking for people.
Another less scary but not great what-if: Many govs (including some us govs) are doing more "pro-active policing" where they try to prevent crimes, often with biased data. Right now its pretty targeted at going to minority neighborhoods, but maybe one day it'll target underage people who buy alcohol paraphernalia to see if they drink underage. Minor crime oft-committed, but probably easy to identify from only grocery store purchase data - especially if you combine that with camera data (walk in/out with someone who buys booze while they buy solo cups). While the under-age drinking is a silly example, it uses pretty easily available data. Think of all the minor crimes people knowingly commit that no one actually cares to enforce. Now imagine what we could do if a computer can just spit out a list of names.
There are so many ways the data can be (ab)used and people come up with more every day.
One other example is the 2016 election and cambridge analytica. Not going to make a political case on the politicians, but the political parties (and foreign govs with interest in the outcome) bought data on electors to try and persuade them to vote for one candidate or the other. Or to make them think issue X is bigger deal than they previously did. People don't like to lose autonomy in politics and data is good for targeting and persuasion.
Of course, the big what-if is also worrisome. Maybe not to you, but to many. Some people are more concerned than others. If your of one minority religion, then you might worry if that religion gets targeted will gov buy data to identify individuals (eg china and Uyghurs or trump and his proposed list of muslums). Maybe your gay in a nation that isn't friendly to that. Its very easy to tell if someone is queer from mass collected data. That could be a concern if the gov starts looking for people.
Another less scary but not great what-if: Many govs (including some us govs) are doing more "pro-active policing" where they try to prevent crimes, often with biased data. Right now its pretty targeted at going to minority neighborhoods, but maybe one day it'll target underage people who buy alcohol paraphernalia to see if they drink underage. Minor crime oft-committed, but probably easy to identify from only grocery store purchase data - especially if you combine that with camera data (walk in/out with someone who buys booze while they buy solo cups). While the under-age drinking is a silly example, it uses pretty easily available data. Think of all the minor crimes people knowingly commit that no one actually cares to enforce. Now imagine what we could do if a computer can just spit out a list of names.
There are so many ways the data can be (ab)used and people come up with more every day.
> They have no interest in lowering your premiums and every interest in raising them.
Which is wholly understandable because to price the risk accurately they need to see the full risk profile.
If insurers couldn't price accurately then insurance as a business couldn't exist.
Which is wholly understandable because to price the risk accurately they need to see the full risk profile.
If insurers couldn't price accurately then insurance as a business couldn't exist.
> If insurers couldn't price accurately then insurance as a business couldn't exist.
Or they can totally stop pricing people reasonably at all. Insurance is predicated on sharing the risk. If "risky" people get priced out of driving (especially based on things they can't reasonably control!) then its probably bad for society.
This is even more true for medical insurance (although laws are probably stronger here). That said, i personally think the government (in us) should be handling medical costs on some level so maybe my opinion on controlling capitalism w/r/t medical insurance isn't the market-driven.
Or they can totally stop pricing people reasonably at all. Insurance is predicated on sharing the risk. If "risky" people get priced out of driving (especially based on things they can't reasonably control!) then its probably bad for society.
This is even more true for medical insurance (although laws are probably stronger here). That said, i personally think the government (in us) should be handling medical costs on some level so maybe my opinion on controlling capitalism w/r/t medical insurance isn't the market-driven.
Imagine if the data falls in the wrong hands. Wrong as in completely crazy and unreasonably wrong, which might be difficult to imagine, but think about what's currently happening in Afghanistan - rebels have now taken over the country and can do as they wish, and I bet they would be happy to use past purchase data to retroactively punish people who bought the "wrong" things in the past if such data collection systems were in use there.
I guess this is an answer to the question but it doesn't answer the motivation behind the question. Why should we care about these things being public? You can tell my gender and rough age by looking at me for a second. If you want to keep those private your grocery store is the least of your concerns.
- The amount of junk food that I buy: That I'm fat
People will judge you using anything they can get their hands on. Looking at your nutritional choices I might think you are not investment material, worth hiring, worth giving a lone to. But then I can also use it to judge your friends, relatives and your great great great grandchildren.
You might have friends over every weekend but those 4 crates of beer also put you on the alcoholics list. +1 alcoholics for your contact list. And you purchased helium for that kids party. A pack of smokes for the gardener per week. You look 62% like a person on the crack cocaine list and 59% like a regular weed customer. Those are over 50% are they not? Seems good enough to use.
Eventually you get to the "people who are not racists but are unsure if their clients are - so you are not hired" kind of situation. How many alcoholics who suck helium, do crack and smoke pot can you "seriously" have in your network?
These are most likely stupid examples but that makes them good. We have no idea how the data will be used when combined with other data. Someone will think of something way more stupid.
You might have friends over every weekend but those 4 crates of beer also put you on the alcoholics list. +1 alcoholics for your contact list. And you purchased helium for that kids party. A pack of smokes for the gardener per week. You look 62% like a person on the crack cocaine list and 59% like a regular weed customer. Those are over 50% are they not? Seems good enough to use.
Eventually you get to the "people who are not racists but are unsure if their clients are - so you are not hired" kind of situation. How many alcoholics who suck helium, do crack and smoke pot can you "seriously" have in your network?
These are most likely stupid examples but that makes them good. We have no idea how the data will be used when combined with other data. Someone will think of something way more stupid.
Others have mentioned specific reasons, but another aspect to consider is that once you've given up any kind of data, it's out of your hands. Maybe you can't think of a reason why that's bad today, but will that be true tomorrow, or next year?
By making the decision that it's fine today, you're also deciding that it's always going to be fine in the future.
By making the decision that it's fine today, you're also deciding that it's always going to be fine in the future.
This doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. If i'm understanding correctly: I shouldn't share that I do X because in the future X might come under scrutiny.
This sort of argument can be deployed to stop you from doing anything. It's also very apocalyptic because you are only assuming downsides. What happens if sharing X actually helps me in the future?
This sort of argument can be deployed to stop you from doing anything. It's also very apocalyptic because you are only assuming downsides. What happens if sharing X actually helps me in the future?
Maybe it's not a slam dunk, but it's something that should at least pass through your mind when making these decisions, and I don't think that's the case for a lot of people.
Does being able to deploy this argument in more situations suggest that it's a bad argument?
As for what happens if sharing X actually helps you in the future, you always have that option. Not sharing initially doesn't stop you from sharing later. Sharing initially does stop you from not-sharing later, if that makes sense.
Does being able to deploy this argument in more situations suggest that it's a bad argument?
As for what happens if sharing X actually helps you in the future, you always have that option. Not sharing initially doesn't stop you from sharing later. Sharing initially does stop you from not-sharing later, if that makes sense.
Purchasing history is some of the most personal and sensitive data there is about you. It can reveal nearly everything.
But, ignoring that, there's a very good reason why you might want to keep as much data out of the machine as possible -- even data that, on its own, is of no importance. That reason is databases. The data you provide to any business will be combined with the data you've provided everywhere else. All of those items that on their own are of no importance become incredibly intrusive and privacy-destroying when combined with each other.
But, ignoring that, there's a very good reason why you might want to keep as much data out of the machine as possible -- even data that, on its own, is of no importance. That reason is databases. The data you provide to any business will be combined with the data you've provided everywhere else. All of those items that on their own are of no importance become incredibly intrusive and privacy-destroying when combined with each other.
Yes, all these disparate databases can be merged together and you can get a pretty darn accurate picture of me.
But so what, what is the end game here?
But so what, what is the end game here?
> But so what, what is the end game here?
Police obviously love this data, and when its being traded in open market it is sold without a warrant. Laws change, if your a minority or in an oppressive country, data is scary.
In real terms for most white americans who don't break laws, the "slippery slope" (or shifting baseline) is already getting bad for end users. ..
I interviewed for a job at an insurance company. They said they offer a car plug in that tracks your car (to know if you're risky driver) to "offer discounts on good driving". They said in interview (not publicly) about 4% of people get discounts and the rest stay the same or go up. They gets tons of data on how people drive to tune their models. They also said that some neighborhoods are now considered more dangerous because they saw other drivers in their data being dangerous. Basically you now pay more because they know you live near other bad drivers, or bad drivers go to the grocery store near you, or whatever.
They also said (in 2018) they are working on an app to show you an id card (and track you in your car if you don't want their dongle). They're very interested in data on where you go and how you use your car, for obvious reasons.
I don't know if they do this, but they could easily buy data on where you shop to determine if the path from your home to the store has dangerous intersections that might raise your premiums. That is an easy use for grocery store data that will have clear downsides to most people.
Police obviously love this data, and when its being traded in open market it is sold without a warrant. Laws change, if your a minority or in an oppressive country, data is scary.
In real terms for most white americans who don't break laws, the "slippery slope" (or shifting baseline) is already getting bad for end users. ..
I interviewed for a job at an insurance company. They said they offer a car plug in that tracks your car (to know if you're risky driver) to "offer discounts on good driving". They said in interview (not publicly) about 4% of people get discounts and the rest stay the same or go up. They gets tons of data on how people drive to tune their models. They also said that some neighborhoods are now considered more dangerous because they saw other drivers in their data being dangerous. Basically you now pay more because they know you live near other bad drivers, or bad drivers go to the grocery store near you, or whatever.
They also said (in 2018) they are working on an app to show you an id card (and track you in your car if you don't want their dongle). They're very interested in data on where you go and how you use your car, for obvious reasons.
I don't know if they do this, but they could easily buy data on where you shop to determine if the path from your home to the store has dangerous intersections that might raise your premiums. That is an easy use for grocery store data that will have clear downsides to most people.
I want full control of data being collected on me, period. I don't care if someone patronizingly thinks it will "help" me. That is not their decision, it is mine.
If someone's making money off my back they better give me a cut, and a big one. 50c off a bag of grapes doesn't cut it.
If someone's making money off my back they better give me a cut, and a big one. 50c off a bag of grapes doesn't cut it.
The October before covid me and Mrs. Asciimov went on a cruse with Royal Caribbean. We got dropped off at the port, put our luggage in the loading area, and proceeded to walk inside, all without talking to anyone.
Not 30 seconds after walking into the Port Building, a RCL rep walked up and greeted me and the mrs by first name. Said please walk this way, I have you all checked in, you just need to go through the returning voyagers boarding line. (metal detector/contraband check)
To be honest it was both creepy to have them just know who I was, and kinda awesome to get to skip the regular check in step. I asked the lady how she knew who we were, she told us that between the cameras in the port and the photos we submitted during the cruise purchase they knew who we where, and the information pops up on their tablet when they are assigned the next customer.
Not 30 seconds after walking into the Port Building, a RCL rep walked up and greeted me and the mrs by first name. Said please walk this way, I have you all checked in, you just need to go through the returning voyagers boarding line. (metal detector/contraband check)
To be honest it was both creepy to have them just know who I was, and kinda awesome to get to skip the regular check in step. I asked the lady how she knew who we were, she told us that between the cameras in the port and the photos we submitted during the cruise purchase they knew who we where, and the information pops up on their tablet when they are assigned the next customer.
Photos you submitted during cruise purchase?
Yeah, you have to send them a picture of yourself when you sign up, like you do for a passport or a drivers license.
It gets attached to your account and when you get on the boat you are given an ID card to use to make onboard purchases and to disembark from the boat. Every time you leave or get on the boat they make sure the photo on your account matches who you say you are.
It gets attached to your account and when you get on the boat you are given an ID card to use to make onboard purchases and to disembark from the boat. Every time you leave or get on the boat they make sure the photo on your account matches who you say you are.
Is this a post-COVID thing? I've been on about a dozen cruises, most on Royal Caribbean ships, and they have always taken a photo at check in. I've never submitted one in advance.
Cruises are international travel, so I'm surprised anyone would be surprised by ID checks.
Looking at your passport, recording the serial number is a bit different than we’re discussing here.
Huh? I'm not surprised by ID checks. I'm surprised by the submission of a photo beforehand since I've never experienced that, as I explained.
I submitted a photo in 2018 as well, probably as part of an online pre-registration. I think during this particular trip the lady also retook our photos with her tablet.
I took a cruise about five years ago, it was a smaller line, no photos were involved. I don’t think I’d submit to them either.
That would be the last time I went on an RCL cruise.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people like it.
But the point is it would be too late, right? So at that point, might as well keep taking cruises if you want to.
When the discussion is Albertsons is scanning your face - I’m not sure it’s practical to think it’s avoidable anymore.
When the discussion is Albertsons is scanning your face - I’m not sure it’s practical to think it’s avoidable anymore.
It's too late to stop, but it's not too late to vote with your wallet and feet and stop supporting businesses who feel the needs to betray your privacy like this just because it was buried in a TOS that they know nobody read.
[deleted]
Kroger has felt especially intrusive for a couple of decades; it's almost as though they're going out of their way to be manipulative and creepy, right from the store layout where Pepsi is $87.00 at your feet and Coke is $0.75 at eye level, down to the personalized coupons they send you in the mail. But the big stores that don't have loyalty cards are still slurping up data; they just get it from your credit card and their cameras. I don't know what the answer is, beyond just trying to frequent farmers' markets.
I hate the idea of facial recognition tech being used like this but I really don’t mind loyalty cards/using credit cards to track spending as long as the data is only used by the stores themselves (and not also sold wholesale to the highest bidders, which I bet it is).
I think it’s fair for them to gather analytics on spending habits and use it to make decisions on how to stock their store, run promotions, etc. Same for personalized coupons. Feels weird, but is pretty harmless, and I’m pretty sure they’re just trying to get you to try new things (like for me, beyond meat) so you start regularly purchasing it.
I think it’s fair for them to gather analytics on spending habits and use it to make decisions on how to stock their store, run promotions, etc. Same for personalized coupons. Feels weird, but is pretty harmless, and I’m pretty sure they’re just trying to get you to try new things (like for me, beyond meat) so you start regularly purchasing it.
No it's not really fair. Until I start seeing Kroger going out of their way to support data provacy initiatives and consumer protections, correctly assume they have ill intent with your data.
What is the worst that could happen if Kroger learns that I use my rewards card to purchase a loaf of wonderbread and other assorted groceries every week?
You buy a pregnancy test and pre-natal vitamins. This information is sold and put together as part of a “profile”. Your employer buys these profiles, sees you’re pregnant and fires you because who wants to deal with maternity or paternity leave. You never told them you were pregnant, they can claim they didn’t know.
Home Depot lost over 50 million debit and credit cards. Linking your first and last name with your payment method / methods and submitting it to companies not known for their security may not be in your best (long-term) interest. Doubly so considering many company account forms have address as well - meaning anyone with access is very close to having everything required to open a bank account in your name.
You're not wrong though; arguments against loyalty cards are seemingly random chains of chance, and the information is being sold by Visa as well anyways. So I'm not surprised by the free market, laissez-faire ideals on display. I don't have my eyes on perfection, just on minimizing how many times I give out potentially damaging information. And if some other people start to push back as well? Well, the more the merrier.
You're not wrong though; arguments against loyalty cards are seemingly random chains of chance, and the information is being sold by Visa as well anyways. So I'm not surprised by the free market, laissez-faire ideals on display. I don't have my eyes on perfection, just on minimizing how many times I give out potentially damaging information. And if some other people start to push back as well? Well, the more the merrier.
Selling it off to a data aggrigator that sells the information to the FBI so you get investigated for buying too much hummus after the next terrorist attack.
I wonder if there's a Winco or local equivalent for you? They don't accept credit cards, only debit cards, checks, and cash. No loyalty programs. And you have to bag your own groceries. I switched from using a debit card to cash just because I like the idea that I'm not being tracked at all.
WinCo Foods, Inc. is a privately held, majority employee-owned[5][6][7] American supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho, with retail stores in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,[8] Utah, and Washington. It was founded in 1967 as a no-frills warehouse-style store with low prices.
WinCo Foods, Inc. is a privately held, majority employee-owned[5][6][7] American supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho, with retail stores in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,[8] Utah, and Washington. It was founded in 1967 as a no-frills warehouse-style store with low prices.
Pay cash, wear a hat and a mask in store, decline to give them PII. It’s a pretty simple and effective solution.
And walk like a penguin? They have gait recognition.
Revel in the dystopia that's already here. Soon it will be Gattaca. De-gene-erate!
Revel in the dystopia that's already here. Soon it will be Gattaca. De-gene-erate!
Gravel in the shoes, like Cory Doctorow foretold...
There's a lot of wisdom in those books, I really like 'em.
I read Little Brother when I was only 12, it's why I originally installed linux :p
His books are awesome, I really love the blend of plot and technical bits he drops in. I read almost all his books right after reading Little Brother and enjoyed every single one.
His books are awesome, I really love the blend of plot and technical bits he drops in. I read almost all his books right after reading Little Brother and enjoyed every single one.
Walk without rhythym, you won't attract the worm
Use the scooters they provide for mobility-impaired people.
Note you shouldn't actually do this because you're taking away a scarce resource that might actually be needed by other people who can't walk, but it would defeat gait recognition. You can always bring your own scooter, but you'd have to bring a different one every time or you could be identified by the scooter. Since that would get quite expensive, you might need to pool resources with other privacy-minded individuals to maintain a shared group of scooters.
Note you shouldn't actually do this because you're taking away a scarce resource that might actually be needed by other people who can't walk, but it would defeat gait recognition. You can always bring your own scooter, but you'd have to bring a different one every time or you could be identified by the scooter. Since that would get quite expensive, you might need to pool resources with other privacy-minded individuals to maintain a shared group of scooters.
Make sure to wear gloves so they can't get your fingerprint off of the scooter handles.
You’re just delaying the inevitable penguin gait recognition.
But then don't I become that guy from the xkcd comic whose license plate is all 1s and Is?
Don't drive. You have to register your vehicle with the state and your current address.
It's very confusing, sharing an apartment with all these other guys also called Rusty Shackleford whose phone number is 867-5309.
It's okay, whenever someone threatens you just rely on the trusty ol' pocket sand technique!
https://youtu.be/PTAXUYLbFYk
https://youtu.be/PTAXUYLbFYk
I opted out of the 'must register your vehicle to a mailing address' a few years ago. The toll firms and meter maid cities send stacks of scary looking penalty assessment letters, which I forward to the landfill. No consequences to me, and the captured CO2 in the paper is sequestered in the dump.
>I don’t know what the answer is
I know this isn’t a privilege available to everyone, but I just shop at a locally owned city grocery that isn’t part of a national conglomerate. I don’t think Good Life Grocery and Rainbow are scanning my face…or maybe I’m one of the oblivious shoppers from the article?
I know this isn’t a privilege available to everyone, but I just shop at a locally owned city grocery that isn’t part of a national conglomerate. I don’t think Good Life Grocery and Rainbow are scanning my face…or maybe I’m one of the oblivious shoppers from the article?
Well, I'm in Cincinnati, roughly the 25th largest metro area in the US. When I grew up, there were IGAs, but I think they're all gone now. We have various farmers' markets, and a couple of one-off independent grocers, and then there's Jungle Jim's, which is sort of a combination grocery-store/amusement-park. I don't know if they're scanning my face or not, but if they are, it's so they know what kind of hot-sauce wall to build.
> But the big stores that don't have loyalty cards are still slurping up data; they just get it from your credit card and their cameras.
True. If you're paying with a card, you might as well use the loyalty program as well.
And be sure to put your cellphone in airplane mode before you get to the store.
True. If you're paying with a card, you might as well use the loyalty program as well.
And be sure to put your cellphone in airplane mode before you get to the store.
I don't really understand the loyalty card thing anyways.
When I lived in the midwest, I'd just get a card from Kroger but never fill out the paperwork. I thought I was being clever, but as pointed out, they still track you by your payment method. With that being the case, why do loyalty cards still exist? For cash buyers?
When I lived in the midwest, I'd just get a card from Kroger but never fill out the paperwork. I thought I was being clever, but as pointed out, they still track you by your payment method. With that being the case, why do loyalty cards still exist? For cash buyers?
To drive demand to certain items at certain times. Not everything is always on sale with the card.
My answer is to not worry about it and be glad that these practices lower prices.
What if they don't actually lower prices, but use your purchase history to learn what gets you to spend more money?
In Canada, 'price discrimination' is a criminal offence. Cuz you know, if something is anti-consumer and impacts rich people, strong laws will be written against it.
But there's many ways around it.
But there's many ways around it.
They lower prices how you get free email from Google, seemingly a good deal. When in reality email costs as low as 1 EUR/mo to be a long-term viable business.
Email is free if you already have a domain name and a public IP.
Domains aren't free and neither is a static IP in most cases.
And maintain/pay for an email server.
You already have to have a computer anyway.
Would it work if the computer I have is not always turned on? I think the other MTAs would give up delivery after a few retries, so you need at least one always-on computer, so a server. And then we're not really in the "free" territory anymore, it's much more worth it to just pay professionals for hosting.
How do they lower prices?
Exactly. It doesn't lower prices. What it really does is increases profits, which allows them to grow faster than local markets and they can expand and wipe out even more groceries and ends up as a big fat bonus for the executives and shareholders.
If fewer people shoplift, the shrinkage rate lowers and grocery stores have more room to play with the price because their margin is wider. This is why inner city stores with higher shrinkage rates charge higher prices and why memberships stores like Costco which have almost no shoplifting losses at all can be so competitive.
If facial recognition is able to reduce theft, prices will likely be competed downwards over time.
If facial recognition is able to reduce theft, prices will likely be competed downwards over time.
They raise prices, then give you a “discount.”
I feel like this misunderstands sales and discounting systems. Because it's a snappy line which is technically true but the long answer is way weirder.
I'm just gonna use Kroger as an example because they use "club pricing", rotating club pricing, actual sales, "manager specials", and closeout sales.
- Everything by default is priced at MSRP, that's the price on the white price tags or the yellow price tags that don't have a corresponding white price.
- Then they use club pricing which is the price on the "yellow" tags that aren't formatted like number/$dollars like 3/$5 or 2/$4. This is the price you would compare to Walmart.
- Then there is rolling club pricing which is like 2/$5 but always unit priced to your benefit. So they will mark 2/$4 but the unit price is $2.
These aren't actually sales in any meaningful sense. But the next ones are.
- The actual sales require a minimum unit purchase. You probably see these when buying soda or vitamins. If you compare prices to other stores this is only time you'll see the unit price actually smaller than other stores. The "buy n get $n" deals are also in this category but are way more gameified.
- Then there are "manager specials" i.e. "woohoo!" deals which are priced with stickers and also actually discounts.
- Finally there are closeout deals which are white tags usually steeply discounted and don't require a card to get.
I really hate that all this garbage works. I really appreciate stores that just post a price.
I'm just gonna use Kroger as an example because they use "club pricing", rotating club pricing, actual sales, "manager specials", and closeout sales.
- Everything by default is priced at MSRP, that's the price on the white price tags or the yellow price tags that don't have a corresponding white price.
- Then they use club pricing which is the price on the "yellow" tags that aren't formatted like number/$dollars like 3/$5 or 2/$4. This is the price you would compare to Walmart.
- Then there is rolling club pricing which is like 2/$5 but always unit priced to your benefit. So they will mark 2/$4 but the unit price is $2.
These aren't actually sales in any meaningful sense. But the next ones are.
- The actual sales require a minimum unit purchase. You probably see these when buying soda or vitamins. If you compare prices to other stores this is only time you'll see the unit price actually smaller than other stores. The "buy n get $n" deals are also in this category but are way more gameified.
- Then there are "manager specials" i.e. "woohoo!" deals which are priced with stickers and also actually discounts.
- Finally there are closeout deals which are white tags usually steeply discounted and don't require a card to get.
I really hate that all this garbage works. I really appreciate stores that just post a price.
All that is true, but none of it is a counterargument to "They raise prices, then give you a “discount.”"
swiley(1)
Walmart makes this rather obvious. I was walking down a medicine aisle the other day, and I looked up and saw my face on a screen with green lines outlining it.
Last time I was in a Walmart, it felt like they were doing everything they could to communicate they didn't want me to shop at their store.
* Gates at the main entrances
* Cameras everywhere
* "Security" walking through the store in clearly marked uniforms
* Self checkouts with UX that clearly communicates a lack of trust.
* Gates at the main entrances
* Cameras everywhere
* "Security" walking through the store in clearly marked uniforms
* Self checkouts with UX that clearly communicates a lack of trust.
In my experience, this is not a general Walmart policy, it is store-specific. Not too long ago I was looking for a product that only Walmart seems to keep in stock, but they don't keep much of it. And their online system is not very accurate. So in the space of two hours I visited four different Walmarts, ranging from one in a nicer area of town, to one in a poor area. Security was nonexistent at the first Walmart. The store was relaxed, there were plenty of associates, they were helpful, etc. The store was actually pretty nice, the only thing out of place was the weirdly low prices compared to any other store in that area. At the other end of the scale, the store in the poor area (which is also majority black, whether or not this is actually a factor in their behavior I can only speculate) had a half dozen security cars in the parking lot with their little flashing yellow lights. Gates at the entrance manned with security personnel, uniformed security inside the store. And the icing on the cake? They were checking 9 out of 10 people's bags on the way out of the store, sort of like Costco. Except me. Waived me right on through. Because I'm not black? I have no idea. But it sure did weird me out.
I know the bag check isn't the focus here, but I always just politely decline. After I've paid, I own whatever is in those bags and no, you can't look in them.
You can just decline in stores that anyone is allowed to just walk in and shop, but at places that you need a membership for, your membership contract usually requires that you let them look.
my friend employs the sunglasses and headphones technique where blatantly ignore them. They can't touch you, so they just shout a few times, and realize the futility and move on to the next shopper.
The availability of that option depends on your appearance: affluent middle-aged white people can usually do it but if you’re a teenager or match whatever demographic is poor in the area, you have to weigh that versus escalation possibly including armed police response.
Which escalations the store would have to weigh against a loss of business they should expect after racially targeting innocent (if so) customers.
Know your rights and exercise them, keep your chin up and communicate. Fear is a trigger of suspicion.
Know your rights and exercise them, keep your chin up and communicate. Fear is a trigger of suspicion.
When has “I’ll never shop here again!” ever been a useful threat? Shops care about people in aggregate, not you in particular. And anyone they decide to bother is someone they already have decided they don’t care about the opinion of.
When "I will never" becomes "we demand".
> we demand
Can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal? Accomplished by the actual boycott alone, I mean.
Can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal? Accomplished by the actual boycott alone, I mean.
Add up all the businesses that have failed and you'll find plenty that disrespected some of their customers.
Walmart is a much higher bar geopolitically, but bet they have to jump too when word gets out of malfeasance. But it is a prisoner's dilemma when they are the main one-stop value shop.
Walmart is a much higher bar geopolitically, but bet they have to jump too when word gets out of malfeasance. But it is a prisoner's dilemma when they are the main one-stop value shop.
Especially when it's, say, Walmart which has built a business on crowding out competitors in an area — are you really going to spend an extra 40+ minutes driving somewhere else out of spite? The power dynamic here seems quite unbalanced.
I know a lot of tech people don't go to Walmart, but this also matches my experience. More brown neighborhoods have more security.
But important note: you can just leave. You don't have to let them check your bag. They aren't cops.
But important note: you can just leave. You don't have to let them check your bag. They aren't cops.
It depends entirely on the specific Walmart and the neighborhood where it's located. I've been traveling the US this summer and have stopped at many Walmarts. Some are well stocked, beautifully maintained stores that you waltz into and out of without a care or delay. Some are run like minimum security prisons, with cameras, gates, security and screens to show you you're on camera (mostly in the makeup isles).
Some Walmart are well stocked, spacious and clean. Some are ravaged, dirty and filled with tourists. It's really amazing the variety of quality.
Some Walmart are well stocked, spacious and clean. Some are ravaged, dirty and filled with tourists. It's really amazing the variety of quality.
All that seems like they don't want you to steal at their store by giving deterrent cues. Which parts were practically inconvenient, or slow you down?
It just makes for a shitty experience. I grew up in a blue-collar family and still dress that way, even though I'm firmly upper-middle class now. I took my wife to a high end mall for a her birthday one year, and when we were looking at designer purses, the security in the store followed us the entire time, presumably because their typical customers don't wear jeans, tshirts, and sneakers. We noticed the security in all the stores were doing it, and eventually we just left without buying anything because we didn't like being treated like criminals because of how we dress. Even though we could easily afford to buy things there, we haven't been back to that mall since.
Except plently of people do wear jeans, tshirts, and sneakers. And probably don't get scrutinized like that. I would consider other factors like cleanliness/neatness, grooming, haircut style, watch & phone styles, etc.
The difference between a mullet and stains on your shirt versus a nice haircut and an apple watch on your wrist.
The difference between a mullet and stains on your shirt versus a nice haircut and an apple watch on your wrist.
They weren't "treating you like criminals" they were just bored!
It's not about inconvenience or efficiency. It's the hostile signaling Walmart is communicating to their customers.
I go to the Target just down the street, and it's the exact opposite experience.
I go to the Target just down the street, and it's the exact opposite experience.
Home Depot does this now, and it's starting to alienate me. They are conveniently located, but in various places in the stores (presumably in the areas where commonly shoplifted products are kept), they have cameras with screens and as you walk by they ding at you so you'll notice they are recording.
I don't like getting treated that way, so I've started shopping more often at Lowes, even though it takes a couple minutes longer to get there.
I don't like getting treated that way, so I've started shopping more often at Lowes, even though it takes a couple minutes longer to get there.
Lowes uses facial recognition tech in their stores. The camera is there all the same.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22576236/retail-stores-fa...
That is unfortunate. But I will admit that the confrontational method Home Depot uses is more off-putting to me than just knowing that there are cameras doing facial recognition. I assume HD is also using that technology, or will be soon.
One of the reasons they have the loud ding is to alert an associate working several aisles there is a customer there so they can go assist them. How that works in practice is debatable.
Looks like Home Depot made a commitment to not use facial recognition? https://www.zdnet.com/article/backlash-to-retail-use-of-faci...
Personally I prefer the "hey we are filming you" notices to the silent approach where they use facial recognition tech that is feeding into a large database.
Just like i prefer notices in my websites that they are data harvesting than the silent approach.
Looks like Home Depot made a commitment to not use facial recognition? https://www.zdnet.com/article/backlash-to-retail-use-of-faci...
Personally I prefer the "hey we are filming you" notices to the silent approach where they use facial recognition tech that is feeding into a large database.
Just like i prefer notices in my websites that they are data harvesting than the silent approach.
> One of the reasons they have the loud ding is to alert an associate working several aisles there is a customer there so they can go assist them.
I sincerely hope they don't believe that's what customers are experiencing, though. And I've never had an HD employee zip on over to help me out when I've been browsing electrical parts. I have, however, started being a little immature and occasionally flip off the camera when it dings at me. Such a rebel I am ;-)
I sincerely hope they don't believe that's what customers are experiencing, though. And I've never had an HD employee zip on over to help me out when I've been browsing electrical parts. I have, however, started being a little immature and occasionally flip off the camera when it dings at me. Such a rebel I am ;-)
target has far more effective anti-theft, but it's far less intrusive, apparently. https://www.paypath.com/Small-Business/why-target-is-the-wor...
Is facial recognition less intrusive, or more convenient? I’d argue the latter.
I agree. Facial recognition is far more intrusive, and far more convenient.
The problem I have with face recognition is what to do about it? Some stores are polite enough to make it obvious, so I know not to shop there, but I can't trust that the other stores aren't also doing it and keeping it quiet.
This has me stumped.
The problem I have with face recognition is what to do about it? Some stores are polite enough to make it obvious, so I know not to shop there, but I can't trust that the other stores aren't also doing it and keeping it quiet.
This has me stumped.
That's surprising to hear. All of the San Francisco Targets recently started closing at 6pm in response to shoplifting.
The Target near me has so many camera domes in the ceiling that I question if they are all even cameras.
I don't have a huge point to make, other than it isn't always as easy as going to another store. To be clear, I don't think you are saying that it is.
I don't have a huge point to make, other than it isn't always as easy as going to another store. To be clear, I don't think you are saying that it is.
It depends on the target. Theft was so bad at one that I used to live near, that they installed a police substation specifically for the target within the building.
Stores used to make customers feel good about shopping there. Adding elements that make your store feel more like a prison don't help here.
I guess the management at those corporations is so bad they do not realize they are driving profits away by spending money to make it feel like a prison.
Or management is using tons of experience and data to do what they have to do to stay in business in a 2% profit margin business, inconveniencing customers if they have to in order to prevent losses so they do not have to close the store.
Or management is using tons of experience and data to do what they have to do to stay in business in a 2% profit margin business, inconveniencing customers if they have to in order to prevent losses so they do not have to close the store.
I think it's on a store-by-store basis. My grandfather works at a Wal-Mart in a small town with a large minority population and said they average 10-12K in merchandise stolen each month. The store is open 24 hours, but they still only have 1 security guard working 9-5 because they'd lose more money from lost sales due to minority groups typically having bad experiences with authority figures and avoiding the store.
This is easily noticeable if you have experience visiting stores in poorer parts of a city and the same brand stores in a richer part of the city.
$12,000 a month? That's almost nothing for a store like Walmart.
"This decision must be correct because management is making it" is a strange idea. Clearly they make mistakes. And clearly their data may not be sufficiently deep for "the new security measures make people not want to shop here so they stay away"
Of course every decision is not correct, but the previous responses were written as if the purpose of the decisions that management made was to inconvenience or harass people, rather than simply an effort to stay in business.
> the previous responses were written as if the purpose of the decisions that management made was to inconvenience or harass people
I didn't get that at all. A little bit of trying to discourage shoplifters. Maybe you read a different thread.
I didn't get that at all. A little bit of trying to discourage shoplifters. Maybe you read a different thread.
If they have to harass people to stay in business, perhaps they shouldn't stay in business.
Whether or not they should stay in business will be determined by the success of a competitor offering customers something different.
I would not bet on it though.
I would not bet on it though.
It's not about being slowed down. It's about being treated like a criminal. I won't shop at stores that are like this simply because I see no reason to put up with being treated like that. And, if the store really has such a serious crime problem that these measures are necessary, I don't want to be there anyway.
> And, if the store really has such a serious crime problem that these measures are necessary, I don't want to be there anyway.
Neither do the people that shop at them, but they are too poor to have a choice. And the store’s management also does not want to spend money on these anti theft measures, but obviously they are having to do so to make it viable for the store to stay open.
Neither do the people that shop at them, but they are too poor to have a choice. And the store’s management also does not want to spend money on these anti theft measures, but obviously they are having to do so to make it viable for the store to stay open.
Apparently they have way too many customers. Business would be so great if it weren't for all the darn customers!
I started to type "That's not facial recognition", then deleted it...
The green box that you're describing is recognizing that _A_ face is in view of the camera. This is often used for properly adjusting focus, exposure, etc... I suppose you could call it "facial recognition", because that's exactly what it's doing. But it's fairly benign and passive. This technology exists in my DSLR cameras that have no network connection and do not save any facial data anywhere in the image.
But then there is facial recognition that knows who you are, it's connected to a network, and it logs where you go - and these back-end systems correlate this data with other data that's been collected about you. Systems that know who you are are what is generally meant when discussing "facial recognition".
This article doesn't say.
The green box that you're describing is recognizing that _A_ face is in view of the camera. This is often used for properly adjusting focus, exposure, etc... I suppose you could call it "facial recognition", because that's exactly what it's doing. But it's fairly benign and passive. This technology exists in my DSLR cameras that have no network connection and do not save any facial data anywhere in the image.
But then there is facial recognition that knows who you are, it's connected to a network, and it logs where you go - and these back-end systems correlate this data with other data that's been collected about you. Systems that know who you are are what is generally meant when discussing "facial recognition".
This article doesn't say.
Yes. But the only reason they need to identify what is a face in the camera is as a step in facial recognition. It's not like the security cameras are adjusting their focus or exposure.
Its just security theater as a theft deterrent. The idea is that if you see a screen with a green box around your face then you believe that they've got a good look at you and if you steal then they can use the images.
Walmart isn't investing money building networked cameras with the processing ability to perform facial recognition at scale in real time. It'd probably cost more money than paying employees to just watch people at the store exits.
Walmart isn't investing money building networked cameras with the processing ability to perform facial recognition at scale in real time. It'd probably cost more money than paying employees to just watch people at the store exits.
It's entirely possible that they are only pretending to do facial recognition as theft deterrent.
They could also be recording the video and doing the facial recognition offline - the analytics aren't valuable in realtime.
They could also be recording the video and doing the facial recognition offline - the analytics aren't valuable in realtime.
I wonder how pervasive this actually is. I've worked a bit in retail technology and we put some sensors in live stores. Tracking dwell time and pings of wifi access points. They generated a ton of noise and almost zero actionable data. Every attempt failed to be deployed to a second store. We had some success with facial recognition but only in really funneled spaces where we could get a customer to look at a camera on purpose. And it was still only about 90% accurate.
They lose a lot to theft in those aisles. I didn’t particularly mind when I thought it was an anonymous noise maker, but you can’t trust that anymore.
Wait till it can ID shoplifting, and people get added to a shared database of blacklisted shoppers.
You can steal no problem, but one day you'll be approached and asked to leave upon entering almost anywhere.
You can steal no problem, but one day you'll be approached and asked to leave upon entering almost anywhere.
Even worse, wait until you somehow acidently find yourself on the shoplifter list. Who are they going to believe, the all knowing facial recognition algorithm, or the lying thief it just identified? What company is going to budget the time and manpower to bother checking?
Meh I think it’s going to be acceptable to wear a mask for at least 5 years, and perhaps indefinitely, which easily defeats facial recognition.
They can already identify people wearing masks [0]:
> a normal face mask doesn’t help you ‘evade’ facial recognition
[0] https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/4511/can-covi...
> a normal face mask doesn’t help you ‘evade’ facial recognition
[0] https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/4511/can-covi...
> They can already identify people wearing masks
There were stories in Germany reporting that if you wore a face mask when driving, you must not also be wearing sunglasses and/or a hat ... because the driver's face must be recognisable if you're caught by a speed camera.
There were stories in Germany reporting that if you wore a face mask when driving, you must not also be wearing sunglasses and/or a hat ... because the driver's face must be recognisable if you're caught by a speed camera.
Hm interesting, so I guess like all things in security/privacy it boils down to an economic war :-/ How much effort are you willing to put into masks vs. how much effort an adversary is willing to spend to defeat it.
It says that there is no single face mask that can defeat every system. That's an interesting point, but what about the converse? There's probably no single recognition system that can defeat every mask.
edit: I also think it's not that unacceptable to wear a mask and sunglasses anymore either, though I've never tried. Maybe you have an eye issue and don't want to get COVID :)
It says that there is no single face mask that can defeat every system. That's an interesting point, but what about the converse? There's probably no single recognition system that can defeat every mask.
edit: I also think it's not that unacceptable to wear a mask and sunglasses anymore either, though I've never tried. Maybe you have an eye issue and don't want to get COVID :)
A fair number of systems are still foiled by masks, as long as the mask covers the entire lower face and is black.
Buildings in New York have already switched the cameras they use to take visitor pass photos with ones that see through the mask, so you don't have to take off your mask anymore.
If we think the solution to these problems is to wear disguises, we've already lost.
This will surely help reintegrate former criminals into society.
Given the numerous videos of shoplifters just walking into SF stores and stealing in plain view while being recorded, I doubt this will stop any of them. Unless there is some change to the system of policies that cause stores to do effectively nothing about shoplifting, it’s not going to stop.
This is only bad if there is no way to appeal such a decision. If implemented well this is probably a good thing. Shoplifting raises prices/reduces availability for shoppers who don’t shoplift (yes, it lowers profit too. It does both).
> This is only bad if there is no way to appeal such a decision.
This is only true if being falsely accused didn't cost you anything (in terms of time, money, etc.), and if the cost of appealling is zero.
This is only true if being falsely accused didn't cost you anything (in terms of time, money, etc.), and if the cost of appealling is zero.
How about dynamically changing prices as you move around the store based on the data they have about your person (income, etc) (some stores have been implementing digital price tags)
When store employees are told not to physically detain any shoplifter, it hardly matters at all if they tell a serial shoplifter to leave the store. The shoplifter will walk around the confronting employee, grab whatever they like off the shelves, and walk out without paying for it. (I've seen this happen numerous times at 7-11, where the facial recognition is being run by store employees using their eyeballs/brains.)
The real victims of this will be the false positives. People who follow the rules, but get incorrectly classified as shoplifters. They will be the ones who are actually turned away at the door.
The real victims of this will be the false positives. People who follow the rules, but get incorrectly classified as shoplifters. They will be the ones who are actually turned away at the door.
Humans won’t detain anyone, but probably in the future there will be mechanistic countermeasures — e.g. the doors of the store just not opening for shoplifters (or at all, while shoplifters continue to be present — to prevent shoplifters from sneaking in ahead/behind a non-blacklisted customer.)
Unmanned stores in the Amazon Go mould are already switching from turnstiles to airlock-style entryways; these can easily recognize and deny shoplifters access. (Never mind that these stores also usually have some form of positive identification, e.g. a card tap or hand-print scan being required to enter; so it’d really just be a matter of blacklisting the account associated with your credential.)
There’s no reason that manned stores couldn’t adopt these more-strict entry access systems as well; manned stores just haven’t invested in such technology yet, because they don’t need it in the way unmanned stores do (where an unmanned store without an entry-access system could literally experience 100% “shrinkage”, if someone decided to back a truck up and start loading.)
Alternately, the facial recognition could just trigger a phonecall; which, combined with a simple policy that any car belonging to a shoplifter has no right to park in the lot, would mean that such cars would have a tow called on them the second the shoplifter gets out of their car and walks into view of a camera. This wouldn’t work in most of the world, but in the car-centered US, I could see it being a very effective deterrent.
Unmanned stores in the Amazon Go mould are already switching from turnstiles to airlock-style entryways; these can easily recognize and deny shoplifters access. (Never mind that these stores also usually have some form of positive identification, e.g. a card tap or hand-print scan being required to enter; so it’d really just be a matter of blacklisting the account associated with your credential.)
There’s no reason that manned stores couldn’t adopt these more-strict entry access systems as well; manned stores just haven’t invested in such technology yet, because they don’t need it in the way unmanned stores do (where an unmanned store without an entry-access system could literally experience 100% “shrinkage”, if someone decided to back a truck up and start loading.)
Alternately, the facial recognition could just trigger a phonecall; which, combined with a simple policy that any car belonging to a shoplifter has no right to park in the lot, would mean that such cars would have a tow called on them the second the shoplifter gets out of their car and walks into view of a camera. This wouldn’t work in most of the world, but in the car-centered US, I could see it being a very effective deterrent.
People might realize that comparing these systems to a prison isn't hyperbole when the doors won't open.
They don't lock you in. The point of an entry-access system is to gate entry, not exit.
To get in, you need to register a credit card. The store observes what you take, and charges that credit card for those items when you leave. If you're inside, you've necessarily given them everything they need to charge you asynchronously for everything you take while you're there. You can leave at any time.
The point of entry-access is to prevent people who don't have a registered active credit card from coming into the store, and so walking away with things that the store cannot then charge to anyone's account.
To get in, you need to register a credit card. The store observes what you take, and charges that credit card for those items when you leave. If you're inside, you've necessarily given them everything they need to charge you asynchronously for everything you take while you're there. You can leave at any time.
The point of entry-access is to prevent people who don't have a registered active credit card from coming into the store, and so walking away with things that the store cannot then charge to anyone's account.
> the doors of the store just not opening for shoplifters (or at all, while shoplifters continue to be present — to prevent shoplifters from sneaking in ahead/behind a non-blacklisted customer.)
This is illegal in my state. And, I'm guessing, in most other US states as well.
This is illegal in my state. And, I'm guessing, in most other US states as well.
Do you mean that denying entry is illegal, or denying exit is?
Because these unmanned stores do let you leave; they just have separate entry and exit doors, which have mutual-exclusion locking (like an airlock) such that nobody can enter the store through the exit door by getting someone inside the store to open the inner door. (You could slip into the little individual exit hall through the outer exit door; but the inner door in the little exit hall would remain locked until you left and it detected there were no longer people in the hall. Presuming a high-traffic store, this also wouldn't hold anything up, as other customers would continue to exit through the bank of other exit halls to either side of you.)
I haven't checked, but presumably pulling a fire alarm inside the store would disable all this security, flinging both the entry and exit doors open. But you can't reach the fire alarm in the exit hall; it's not "inside" the store. The only thing you can do in the exit hall, is exit (which you are always free to do.)
Because these unmanned stores do let you leave; they just have separate entry and exit doors, which have mutual-exclusion locking (like an airlock) such that nobody can enter the store through the exit door by getting someone inside the store to open the inner door. (You could slip into the little individual exit hall through the outer exit door; but the inner door in the little exit hall would remain locked until you left and it detected there were no longer people in the hall. Presuming a high-traffic store, this also wouldn't hold anything up, as other customers would continue to exit through the bank of other exit halls to either side of you.)
I haven't checked, but presumably pulling a fire alarm inside the store would disable all this security, flinging both the entry and exit doors open. But you can't reach the fire alarm in the exit hall; it's not "inside" the store. The only thing you can do in the exit hall, is exit (which you are always free to do.)
I mean that locking the doors so occupants can't exit is illegal.
I recently saw a viral video of a seagull shoplifting a bag of chips. The automatic doors didn't open for the seagull, so the bird just waited until a permitted human approached the door.
A "mantrap" entrance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantrap_(access_control) ) could solve this, but I think many stores don't have the space for it. That 7-11 doesn't. Also, neither the cops nor the towing company will show up in time to do anything about it.
A "mantrap" entrance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantrap_(access_control) ) could solve this, but I think many stores don't have the space for it. That 7-11 doesn't. Also, neither the cops nor the towing company will show up in time to do anything about it.
Thank you; a mantrap was exactly what I was trying to describe in my other comments, but didn't know the word for it.
It's not true that a 7-11 doesn't have room for a mantrap; remember that an unmanned store doesn't have a cash register / checkout counter, or any space behind such for a person to stand. A manned store could be retrofitted into a secure unmanned store by installing the mantrap entrance into exactly that area.
It's not true that a 7-11 doesn't have room for a mantrap; remember that an unmanned store doesn't have a cash register / checkout counter, or any space behind such for a person to stand. A manned store could be retrofitted into a secure unmanned store by installing the mantrap entrance into exactly that area.
At some point (at least on the east cost) you end up with legit armed private (or public, I can't tell honestly) security at the front.
And: if you have a smartphone in your pocket there will be attempts to couple your smartphone device ID to your mugshots from various angles.
Isn't that a non-issue since a few years ago, because google/apple put in mac randomization?
That's very well possible but there are numerous workaround for that that would still allow you to uniquely identify a phone. Regardless: the push to identify people out and about, the push to tie those identities to online behavior is real and relentless, and relatively little is done to curb this. Personally I think all of these transaction should be done only with consenting adults or by - presumably properly overseen - law enforcement acting after they obtained a warrant.
How does that work? How do they get the ID? And is it location accurate enough that it would not get confused with another phone a few feet away?
Wifi and/or bluetooth media addresses, which are unique. I've heard that wifi tracks you to the store, bluetooth to the aisle in the store. A lot of people have all this enabled on their phones, right? Then there's the apps installed on so many phones that are built using facebook sdk's and similar that include a lot of spyware.
I have the impression that stores doing this are working with data aggregator to associate this information with other sources of info, like credit card purchases, facial recognition, phone number and imei, etc.
I have the impression that stores doing this are working with data aggregator to associate this information with other sources of info, like credit card purchases, facial recognition, phone number and imei, etc.
> I've heard that wifi tracks you to the store, bluetooth to the aisle in the store.
I interviewed a guy who worked on this very technology. It's used in retail stores to track foot traffic and how people move around the shopping area.
I interviewed a guy who worked on this very technology. It's used in retail stores to track foot traffic and how people move around the shopping area.
Android and iOS are randomizing the mac addresses.
I read up on this [0]. It looks like it helps to have a newer phone, and even then this feature is inconsistent across models, with some phones spewing non-random frames even when wifi is off and/or depending on how location services is configured. Although I would assume the feature will continue to be better implemented as time goes on, it doesn't look like something that is protecting most people yet.
I read a bit about bluetooth tracking [1]. Apple and Google both apparently support this kind of tracking via apps, and a lot of apps use toolkits made by advertisers that do this. Apple has been selling their iBeacon devices that can be located in stores to track people. Here's [2] something about google tracking via bluetooth even when bluetooth is turned off.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/18/wifi_tracking_failure...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...
[2] https://qz.com/1169760/phone-data/
I read a bit about bluetooth tracking [1]. Apple and Google both apparently support this kind of tracking via apps, and a lot of apps use toolkits made by advertisers that do this. Apple has been selling their iBeacon devices that can be located in stores to track people. Here's [2] something about google tracking via bluetooth even when bluetooth is turned off.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/18/wifi_tracking_failure...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...
[2] https://qz.com/1169760/phone-data/
You're right. Stores would need, for example, loyalty and coupon apps installed, meaning the phone could report BT beacons and MAC addresses.
I heard it's a lot more than the specific store app tracking people in that store. I've heard that there are tons of toolkits and sdks used to build apps that have this kind of tracking built into them, for example [0]: 79 out of 123 manually tested educational apps tested were sending data to 140 advertising companies. Another article [1] saying that Apple has done nothing to stop this, either.
I'd assume that anyone with location services enabled and/or more than a few very well chosen apps is being tracked via these methods. I assume that most popular apps include this stuff, and most people are being tracked. The more I look into it the more pervasive it seems to be.
[0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/education-apps-are-sending-...
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/06/07/apps-continuing-to-trac...
I'd assume that anyone with location services enabled and/or more than a few very well chosen apps is being tracked via these methods. I assume that most popular apps include this stuff, and most people are being tracked. The more I look into it the more pervasive it seems to be.
[0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/education-apps-are-sending-...
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/06/07/apps-continuing-to-trac...
If they do this to a person from an EU country, won't that person have a potent issue to raise via GDPR?
Good luck proving it happened.
Good luck keeping a blowjob in the Oval Office a secret.
There’s far too many people involved in such an operation to keep a blatant criminal offence secret for a prolonged amount of time.
Tracking like this is, for now at least, not possible in the EU.
Oh boy, will this comment age badly.
Oh boy, will this comment age badly.
Let's leverage the current mask trend, and make masks that are low-rez displays, and project a loop of shifting blurry different generated facial features, like the scramble suits in scanner darkly :)
With a bit of cleverness, even need masks or e ink displays. A normal t shirt with a special pattern is enough: https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/29/researchers-fool-person-d...
Paper: https://mitibmwatsonailab.mit.edu/research/blog/adversarial-...
Paper: https://mitibmwatsonailab.mit.edu/research/blog/adversarial-...
[deleted]
Whoever builds a wearable “sparkler” that is able to disrupt digital cameras or the underlying tech in a way that doesn’t require the user to wear a large scarf or similar is going to really usher in an interesting part of history.
Your face is just one of a myriad of things that can be recognized and tracked.
There are so many facets of the human body which can all be combined. Can't see your face? Who cares- I can see how far apart your eyes are, how tall you are, your shoulder-to-elbow length, your walking speed, and your approximate weight. You're dogman144, and you spend an average of $26.34 per visit.
There are so many facets of the human body which can all be combined. Can't see your face? Who cares- I can see how far apart your eyes are, how tall you are, your shoulder-to-elbow length, your walking speed, and your approximate weight. You're dogman144, and you spend an average of $26.34 per visit.
Ya tracking its more than just face. Thinking of some wearable RF-ish broadcaster, use it disrupt the comp vision that is a root for biometrics of various types. I know I’m hand waving a lot of stuff technically though.
AFAIK those only work because cheap cameras lack IR filters, for both cost-cutting and night-vision reasons. More advanced cameras have IR filters, rendering such devices useless.
One of the many benefits of facial coverings in 2020 and beyond. Its not perfect but its a solution until we get a "sparkler".
You mean like this?
https://www.reflectacles.com/
https://www.reflectacles.com/
You can obscure your face from many cameras with bright IR leds, but then you become "that one guy who's face shows up on camera as a bright washed out blur." It's like trying to hide an airplane from radars by broadcasting megawatts of broadband noise; possible but not particularly useful.
Seems weird this wouldn't really be discussed, but this also means that aggressively publicizing this simple fact, and lobbying for very obvious consent & information obligations, might be enough to reign in these practices.
60% seems high to me. This was the first that I've heard of it being used. I'm not surprised to learn of it, but I hadn't really thought about it before seeing the headline.
Well, suppose they became aware. Then what?
Then we can stop going to stores and shop more online, since another upside of bricks-and-mortar is gone.
Hard to say if all the data collection that happens online is any better
Isn't that the point? No way out really.
Sure there’s a way out. Elect representatives who will vote to outlaw the use of facial recognition and other tracking technologies.
There are many things I wish they would do and this isn't at the top of the list for me.
That's kind of why we have broken laws.
People vote for what's on the top of their list, which is always one side of the abortion debate, the gun debate, the social justice/identity politics debate, or otherwise.
The stuff further down, in aggregate, matters a lot more, and is universally corrupt.
People vote for what's on the top of their list, which is always one side of the abortion debate, the gun debate, the social justice/identity politics debate, or otherwise.
The stuff further down, in aggregate, matters a lot more, and is universally corrupt.
Not sure those are the top ones either but let's grant the point. What do you think voters should be doing instead?
Shop local, independent stores. Vote with your wallet.
How do I know local, independent stores aren't using face recognition?
I can get a home security face recognition camera for $30. This is no longer elite technology.
I can get a home security face recognition camera for $30. This is no longer elite technology.
I'll take my chances with the panopticon.
Data tracking and collection has always been a thing for big brick and mortar stores, it's just that tracking technology has massively progressed in the past decade.
Yeah that’s all loyalty cards are about.
Or show up in one of those anti face recognition masks whenever you go shopping.
You've kind of been handed a readymade excuse to obscure half your face at all times. One of the big ironies of the 1/6 event that people were so committed to masklessness as a political statement that they filmed themselves commiting crimes without obscuring their faces.
Normalize masks? Let them figure my face from that!
They're trying to recognize your face anyway. e.g. see https://pages.nist.gov/frvt/html/frvt_facemask.html It looks like the testing is still done in relation to synthetic masks, but I could see that shifting over time. Absolutely repugnant that the industry is targeting masked individuals, but it's happening none the less.
Mask, hoodie and a cooler and I'm sure they can't do crap. They can try gait but it's a losing proposition anyway.
The traditional Japanese bank robber getup (I guess because these were common items anyway) is surgical mask and sunglasses.
Then they will reject anti-virus software so we should be fine.
I tried telling random adults on the main street in my University town that Target was using non-disclosed facial recognition, about four years ago, for a while. The rate of response was less than half for people to show concern. I also somewhat-randomly discovered a local "facial aware" security system installer at the coffee shop. Once he noticed I was asking pointed questions about consent, he changed his tone and said "yeah I install a bunch of high tech shit" and ended the conversation. Weeks later I saw him driving by and rode my bicycle next to him in traffic making a scene (saying nothing that could be construed as a threat). He was a little shaken that time I hope.
As a US Citizen I am strongly opposed to non-disclosed facial recognition in commercial settings. The covid masking is almost like Greek-fable humor of the gods, rendering even ATM (perfect picture) facial recognition moot.
As a US Citizen I am strongly opposed to non-disclosed facial recognition in commercial settings. The covid masking is almost like Greek-fable humor of the gods, rendering even ATM (perfect picture) facial recognition moot.
> Weeks later I saw him driving by and rode my bicycle next to him in traffic making a scene while saying nothing that could be construed as a threat. He was a little shaken that time I hope.
You tried to subtly threaten and shake up the owner of a local coffee shop, weeks later, as revenge for not entertaining your questions about the features of his security system?
You tried to subtly threaten and shake up the owner of a local coffee shop, weeks later, as revenge for not entertaining your questions about the features of his security system?
Following somebody on the street is less threatening than filming them for lifelong worldwide tracking and profiling
If you followed one specific person perhaps, but just doing that in your store? Seems like a stretch.
I did no threatening or revenge, and you should definitely retract that statement.
You made a scene, while intentionally avoiding saying anything that could be construed as a threat (which is generally an attempt at subtle threatening), and you hope that you shook him up.
To remove that part: you hope that you shook up a local business owner for not entertaining your questions about the features of his security system?
To remove that part: you hope that you shook up a local business owner for not entertaining your questions about the features of his security system?
Why so much respect for someone just because they're a business owner?
Sounds more like someone liked surveillance but got shaken up by sousveillance.
Sounds more like someone liked surveillance but got shaken up by sousveillance.
I would mention it if they were his neighbor or a cab driver as well.
It's not a matter of respect, but this person simply installed a security system for their safety. They're obviously not extremely technical. They're just trying to go about their day, serve their customers and make a living, and go home.
My point in that wording is that it's some random local person in the community, not the head of the NSA's PRISM program. It's actually crazy to try and shake that person up for installing security cameras in their coffee shop and not getting everyone who walks in to sign a consent form to be recorded.
It's not a matter of respect, but this person simply installed a security system for their safety. They're obviously not extremely technical. They're just trying to go about their day, serve their customers and make a living, and go home.
My point in that wording is that it's some random local person in the community, not the head of the NSA's PRISM program. It's actually crazy to try and shake that person up for installing security cameras in their coffee shop and not getting everyone who walks in to sign a consent form to be recorded.
> It's not a matter of respect, but this person simply installed a security system for their safety.
And OP asked questions about it and got brushed off. At least in most of Canada (not even EU), if you’re collecting personal info, you have to answer to how/what/why you collected it and provide notice of that too.
And OP asked questions about it and got brushed off. At least in most of Canada (not even EU), if you’re collecting personal info, you have to answer to how/what/why you collected it and provide notice of that too.
ok we have to close this thread but I will say that a) you have several assumptions there that I know are not this case b) I own my actions and I repeat it here for the group c) many systems of law are changed over time; the law has not caught up to the tech, and it is up to people in daylight to make the world, not backroom deals or secret profiles. I will stick with that one - this is a Daylight Action if you see what I mean
>saying nothing that could be construed as a threat.
>He was a little shaken that time I hope.
Choose one of these.
>He was a little shaken that time I hope.
Choose one of these.
informed consent - pick two
.. expanded the sentence might be "shaken from his onerous and insular attitude to one of realization that others are not able to agree if they are not informed"
.. expanded the sentence might be "shaken from his onerous and insular attitude to one of realization that others are not able to agree if they are not informed"
Surprising that these tactics did not work.
What I actually found most surprising in this article was that a plurality don't seem to mind:
> When it came to whether or not respondents supported the use of facial recognition by retailers, 42 percent said they didn't mind it while 38 percent said they were against its use in stores.
(I assume the remaining 20% were "unsure" or similar? The article doesn't say.)
Not sure what to make of this...
> When it came to whether or not respondents supported the use of facial recognition by retailers, 42 percent said they didn't mind it while 38 percent said they were against its use in stores.
(I assume the remaining 20% were "unsure" or similar? The article doesn't say.)
Not sure what to make of this...
I would love for there to be a legal requirement/warning posted on shop entrances saying "This facility uses CCTV/Facial Tracking/Phone Tracking/etc"
There are requirements for the CCTV notices already.. you probably haven't noticed, because they're tiny and out of the way. Plus a lot of establishments use non-committal language like "may be recorded by CCTV" (almost as if every retailer added the signs but only some of them added the tech).
It would be great if this was posted, boldly, clearly. As long as there are data protection limits (only 3 month's history can be maintained, data is unrecoverably disposed of) and accommodations for those who do not consent. (If every grocery store adopts the tech, how will you buy groceries if you do not accept these practices?)
It would be great if this was posted, boldly, clearly. As long as there are data protection limits (only 3 month's history can be maintained, data is unrecoverably disposed of) and accommodations for those who do not consent. (If every grocery store adopts the tech, how will you buy groceries if you do not accept these practices?)
that sign would be right outside your front door.
This may be a stupid idea and it is outside my expertise (IANAL): Would legally classifying identity information as intellectual property help? I don't know the case law around identity as private property but I would imagine requiring someone to enter into a legally binding contract just to enter a store would kill efforts like these pretty fast.
If the scheme relies on copyright or trademark for effectiveness, then it wouldn't help. Not sure about other forms of IP law.
What annoys me the most is how sad tech allocation is. Courtrooms are moving papers like it's 1869 but walmart needs to invoke alien tech to see my emotions when browsing deals.
40% isn’t really “almost half,” unless you squint and turn your head sideways.
I’m a little suspicious of surveys that have only two choices that add up to 100%.
That said, I’m not happy with the way that facial recognition is being deployed, and a lot of HN readers are the ones that are crafting the tools.
When a blacksmith makes a sword, they know what it’s for. Things get fuzzier, after that.
I watched a (terrible) movie, a while ago, called Monsters of Man, and it featured this team of geeks that developed AI-powered killbots, and were forced to get “up close and personal” with their work.
Needless to say, things didn’t end well for them.
I’m a little suspicious of surveys that have only two choices that add up to 100%.
That said, I’m not happy with the way that facial recognition is being deployed, and a lot of HN readers are the ones that are crafting the tools.
When a blacksmith makes a sword, they know what it’s for. Things get fuzzier, after that.
I watched a (terrible) movie, a while ago, called Monsters of Man, and it featured this team of geeks that developed AI-powered killbots, and were forced to get “up close and personal” with their work.
Needless to say, things didn’t end well for them.
I wonder how useful facial recognition is to companies when so many people have been wearing masks.
So which retailers are doing this?
From this list [0]: Albertson's, H.E.B., Macy's, and Apple at the moment, and there's a whole list of companies that said they might use it in the future.
EDIT: elsewhere in these comments someone stated that Apple does not use facial recognition.
[0] https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/#scorecard
EDIT: elsewhere in these comments someone stated that Apple does not use facial recognition.
[0] https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/#scorecard
I don't believe that Walmart isn't using this data, they have way too many cameras in there stores not to be using it.
Not that it really matters anyway. If you use credit cards, they already know more about you and your buying habits than you could imagine.
Not that it really matters anyway. If you use credit cards, they already know more about you and your buying habits than you could imagine.
If this comes to my country I'll be shopping with a balaclava
Another reason for everyone to where masks while out shopping.
All the more reason to continue wearing masks when shopping!
... and even if they were, they wouldn't care much.
Pay us to find out the list of stores to avoid…
My wife has a conspiracy theory: The reason why mask mandates are being extended is so that facial recognition has practice recording and analyzing faces that are covered.
It’s horrible. But what is there to do about it?
Support politicians who are in favor of laws regulating these kinds of activities. Or become one yourself.
Hmm this article on corps casually gathering data on people has an awful dark pattern GDPR implementation.
Like the photo of LCD screens replacing supermarket fridge doors and Hacker News comments about how clever they where to know about glass, and missed the cameras that came with every door, exactly as the company intended.
That sort of thing?
That sort of thing?
This has to be one of the most worthless articles I've ever read. The title here is really the TL:DR, the only additional piece of info in the article not present in the title is the numbers. The source of the data for this article is here:
https://piplsay.com/face-recognition-tech-in-retail-are-amer...
https://piplsay.com/face-recognition-tech-in-retail-are-amer...
Agreed. This is a much better article from last month: https://www.axios.com/facial-recognition-retail-surge-c13fff...
There are a great deal of things many Americans are not aware of. Also, what about non - Americans?
A headline that just said "Customers" here would be far less precise.
(Isn't normally the complain that Americans think themselves all that matter in the world, a la "World Series" or "World Champions" for sports leagues that span just two countries? Can't win either way, I guess!)
(Isn't normally the complain that Americans think themselves all that matter in the world, a la "World Series" or "World Champions" for sports leagues that span just two countries? Can't win either way, I guess!)
>A headline that just said "Customers" here would be far less precise.
"Shoppers" then. That would be more correct.
>(Isn't normally the complain that Americans think themselves all that matter in the world, a la "World Series" or "World Champions" for sports leagues that span just two countries? Can't win either way, I guess!)
All part of it.
"Shoppers" then. That would be more correct.
>(Isn't normally the complain that Americans think themselves all that matter in the world, a la "World Series" or "World Champions" for sports leagues that span just two countries? Can't win either way, I guess!)
All part of it.
You tell us
Americans seem to focus on themselves more than other nationalities.
This is common the world over. What is not common the world over is that there is this thing called exceptionalism which America uses to tell itself that they are the good guys in everything they do and in general better at everything they do. This is something I haven't experienced anywhere else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
Why is this comment thread veering off to "American exceptionalism"?. The straigtforward answer as to why the title says "Many americans..." is that they conducted a nation-wide survey of americans. They could have done a global survey, but they didn't, probably because:
1. it would be much more expensive and logistically challenging (eg. localizing the questions)
2. the readership of the media company that commissioned the survey is mostly american
It's not because of "American exceptionalism" or whatever.
1. it would be much more expensive and logistically challenging (eg. localizing the questions)
2. the readership of the media company that commissioned the survey is mostly american
It's not because of "American exceptionalism" or whatever.
Because it's a discussion board.
I have never heard any politician here say "British people are x" or that "British people feel y". In America such expressions appear in almost every speech. Likewise for news headlines etc. In the UK the title would be "customers not aware" and the like. This is to give the (correct) impression that the entire nation has in no way been united by this fact. But in the US it seems more common to use terminology that lumps everyone together, to the exclusion of the rest of the world.
>I have never heard any politician here say "British people are x" or that "British people feel y".
You haven't? Here's some speeches I found using "uk prime minister speech":
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49102495
>British people have had enough of waiting.
>Brexit was a fundamental decision by the British people [...]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-leader-speech-...
>It will leave the British people wondering [...]
You haven't? Here's some speeches I found using "uk prime minister speech":
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49102495
>British people have had enough of waiting.
>Brexit was a fundamental decision by the British people [...]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-leader-speech-...
>It will leave the British people wondering [...]
In the UK it's not even limited to people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiKmqY_RNME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiKmqY_RNME
They polled 31k Americans for this, what do you want the article title to be?
Some shop uses face recognition. Who cares enough to bother finding that out? (not to say it isn't important) It hardly indicates a social trend.
I'm honestly perplexed by the discussion here. Why should I care that a grocery store is using this? They already have camera systems - what is it about feeding that data into a facial recognition algorithm that is so awful?
They want to identify who their customers are and already do a good job of it with loyalty cards. I often have to show my ID when I buy beer. I'm in a public place where I have no expectation of privacy. I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi.
What exactly should I be trying to hide here?
They want to identify who their customers are and already do a good job of it with loyalty cards. I often have to show my ID when I buy beer. I'm in a public place where I have no expectation of privacy. I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi.
What exactly should I be trying to hide here?
2025: Why should I care if a grocery has my DNA and fingerprints? They already have facial recognition and a record of everything I ever bought, it's not like they are sharing it with anyone.
Also 2025: Why should I care if my gym has facial recognition technology?
2026: Why should I care if a grocery shares my DNA and entire purchase history with my insurance provider? It's not like I'm obese. I go to the gym.
2027: Why should I care that my insurance provider has DNA sequencing technology, my entire purchase history from every grocery store ever, my gym history, my driving history, my family history, a record of my health and fitness habits? I'm healthy.
2030: I suddenly have $500,000 in health bills because my health insurance provider dropped me 1 week before I had a sudden heart attack and presented 400 pages of evidence to the judge that it was justified based on the policy violations they repeatedly caught me doing. I guess I didn't read the fine print! I guess I shouldn't have smoked that one cigarette outside the bar when I was drunk that night, or have gotten drunk in the first place. And that burger on the fourth of July. I agree, in hindsight, that was over the line. All those premiums, and they drop me the second I am no longer profitable to them! But they're a business, they provide a valuable service to people who couldn't otherwise afford healtchare, so...
Also 2025: Why should I care if my gym has facial recognition technology?
2026: Why should I care if a grocery shares my DNA and entire purchase history with my insurance provider? It's not like I'm obese. I go to the gym.
2027: Why should I care that my insurance provider has DNA sequencing technology, my entire purchase history from every grocery store ever, my gym history, my driving history, my family history, a record of my health and fitness habits? I'm healthy.
2030: I suddenly have $500,000 in health bills because my health insurance provider dropped me 1 week before I had a sudden heart attack and presented 400 pages of evidence to the judge that it was justified based on the policy violations they repeatedly caught me doing. I guess I didn't read the fine print! I guess I shouldn't have smoked that one cigarette outside the bar when I was drunk that night, or have gotten drunk in the first place. And that burger on the fourth of July. I agree, in hindsight, that was over the line. All those premiums, and they drop me the second I am no longer profitable to them! But they're a business, they provide a valuable service to people who couldn't otherwise afford healtchare, so...
If i'm reading this right, i see two arguments here.
The first is a slippery slope. They are starting to use facial recognition now and will soon be asking for my DNA and fingerprints. I just don't agree that the slope is slippery. Why would my grocery store care to collect that information? We're talking about grocery store items - the company just wants to know what i'm buying so they can send me ads to buy more stuff. They have no interest in my fingerprints or DNA. This honestly just comes off as paranoid and conspiratorial.
The second argument is more interesting. You fear that different databases (grocery, driving, fitness, etc) will be joined together and deployed against us. I don't think this is an unreasonable fear at all. However, I totally disagree that fighting this on the collection side will be fruitful. The unfortunate conclusion i've come to here is that there is no individual action I can take to stop the collection and collation of all this data. I can limit how much information I share - which I do when necessary - but again, what i'm buying at the grocery store is not the privacy hill worth dying on.
Instead the better way to fight this is with laws. The specific example you brought up is Health insurance discrimination but the problem with your example is that large parts of it are already banned by law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
The Affordable Care Act added even more limits to what insurers can do to decide on rates.
The first is a slippery slope. They are starting to use facial recognition now and will soon be asking for my DNA and fingerprints. I just don't agree that the slope is slippery. Why would my grocery store care to collect that information? We're talking about grocery store items - the company just wants to know what i'm buying so they can send me ads to buy more stuff. They have no interest in my fingerprints or DNA. This honestly just comes off as paranoid and conspiratorial.
The second argument is more interesting. You fear that different databases (grocery, driving, fitness, etc) will be joined together and deployed against us. I don't think this is an unreasonable fear at all. However, I totally disagree that fighting this on the collection side will be fruitful. The unfortunate conclusion i've come to here is that there is no individual action I can take to stop the collection and collation of all this data. I can limit how much information I share - which I do when necessary - but again, what i'm buying at the grocery store is not the privacy hill worth dying on.
Instead the better way to fight this is with laws. The specific example you brought up is Health insurance discrimination but the problem with your example is that large parts of it are already banned by law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim...
The Affordable Care Act added even more limits to what insurers can do to decide on rates.
> The first is a slippery slope.
Actually I mean something closer to shifting baseline [1] in a broader sense. We've just come to accept a vast loss of privacy as surveillance and data gathering has become so cheap, so pervasive, and insidiously hidden, that at this point it is impossible to stop it. The inertia is all rolling downhill at this point. The slippery slope has slipped and slid already, well past what we would have considered acceptable a generation ago. It was unthinkable when I was a kid in the 1980s or a teenager in the 1990s that they would do so much tracking, in meatspace and cyberspace.
And you're right that there is no way to stop it, except through laws. The US government is completely asleep at the wheel. Worse, they've been paid off to be asleep at the wheel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_baseline
Actually I mean something closer to shifting baseline [1] in a broader sense. We've just come to accept a vast loss of privacy as surveillance and data gathering has become so cheap, so pervasive, and insidiously hidden, that at this point it is impossible to stop it. The inertia is all rolling downhill at this point. The slippery slope has slipped and slid already, well past what we would have considered acceptable a generation ago. It was unthinkable when I was a kid in the 1980s or a teenager in the 1990s that they would do so much tracking, in meatspace and cyberspace.
And you're right that there is no way to stop it, except through laws. The US government is completely asleep at the wheel. Worse, they've been paid off to be asleep at the wheel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_baseline
All of these concerns can be prevented with effective laws, which most people would agree is a better solution that boycotting the world or wearing elaborate disguises in public (as has been suggested in many other comments here).
You don't think there is a qualitative difference between your security footage getting recorded -- maybe watched by a security guard half-paying attention -- and then written over, versus having it analyzed, tracked, and stored for an unknowable amount of time?
Or a difference between having the option of presenting your loyalty card, versus having your face implicitly being your loyalty card, with no way of knowing, and no way to opt out?
Or a cashier glancing at your ID to check that it's legit and promptly forgetting about it, versus having it scanned and tied to the transaction, and combined with your other behavioral data?
When you see a camera on the street corner, is that the same to you as greeting your neighbor?
Or a difference between having the option of presenting your loyalty card, versus having your face implicitly being your loyalty card, with no way of knowing, and no way to opt out?
Or a cashier glancing at your ID to check that it's legit and promptly forgetting about it, versus having it scanned and tied to the transaction, and combined with your other behavioral data?
When you see a camera on the street corner, is that the same to you as greeting your neighbor?
There is a difference, yes. Most security footage is never viewed. It's simply recorded and then reviewed later if there is an issue.
What facial recognition adds is that it identifies my presence there automatically but again - this is a grocery store we're talking about. It's a public place and I have no expectation of privacy.
They can identify that I entered the store, what aisles I went down, then at checkout can see what I bought. And why do I care?
I'm really not being edgy or flippant with that question. What is the concern here?
What facial recognition adds is that it identifies my presence there automatically but again - this is a grocery store we're talking about. It's a public place and I have no expectation of privacy.
They can identify that I entered the store, what aisles I went down, then at checkout can see what I bought. And why do I care?
I'm really not being edgy or flippant with that question. What is the concern here?
Society is by its nature in part adversarial. If one group gets a new powerful tool at their disposal, it may change the current balance of power in their advantage. Just see how it works in an opposite case - crypto - where the common folks may increase, through innovative technology, their freedom from being herded by governments. The governments are extremely concerned about it, even though cryptocurrencies are perfectly legal and theoretically don't change much (it's just another means of transacting and storing value).
> I run into my neighbors in the grocery store and say Hi.
There is a considerable difference between low data density, person to person, information... and high density, machine gathered, massive data stores. The later is much easier and more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.
There is a considerable difference between low data density, person to person, information... and high density, machine gathered, massive data stores. The later is much easier and more likely to be used for nefarious purposes.
I understand that but stores have been storing this sort of customer data for decades now and what nefarious things have come of it?
Nobody cares that I bought milk and eggs last week, they won't care two decades from now.
Nobody cares that I bought milk and eggs last week, they won't care two decades from now.
I find it absurd. But I live in a county where CCTV can only be used for loss-prevention.
Apple stores now use face recognition on their camera feeds, as well. I always wear a mask and glasses in them, now, and pay cash.
EDIT: according to shuckles below, this is incorrect.
EDIT: according to shuckles below, this is incorrect.
As far as I can tell, this is untrue. Apple has denied using it [0] and the case is better explained by a thief using a false identity alongside bad detective work on the part of police and a contracted security company [1].
[0] https://www.theverge.com/tech/2019/4/23/18512942/apple-lawsu... [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/29/apple-sued-over-f...
[0] https://www.theverge.com/tech/2019/4/23/18512942/apple-lawsu... [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/29/apple-sued-over-f...
Ahh, thanks for the clarification!
I’m with you that it’s gross Apple is using this technology, OTOH though your hiding your face and paying cash to then take what you bought and configure it with a device that identifies you to that very business and probably even can track where you fought it by ID.
I use a brand new apple ID (each of which requires a burner number to create) for each and every device, and I don't attach payment info to the account (free apps only), and I don't put SIM cards in them (apple receives the device serial and sim card serial when you insert one), I don't use iCloud/FaceTime/iMessage, I keep location services off at all times, and I only allow them internet access via a VPN-only router that filters a lot of traffic.
It's a pain in the ass. I've had every one but this 12 pro is very likely my last iPhone.
It's a pain in the ass. I've had every one but this 12 pro is very likely my last iPhone.
[deleted]
What’s the point of a smart phone if you only have WiFi and no gps?
I have a separate battery powered device that does LTE backhaul and VPN and provides wifi, on which I have root and iptables/tcpdump.
This way the VPN can't be bypassed on the phone, and I can inspect and filter traffic.
Uber can be used by entering an address (eg one a block down from my house) with location services off. The only things I really miss out on are things that don't work at all without location, like the snap map or tinder.
This way the VPN can't be bypassed on the phone, and I can inspect and filter traffic.
Uber can be used by entering an address (eg one a block down from my house) with location services off. The only things I really miss out on are things that don't work at all without location, like the snap map or tinder.
Based on the phone number in your bio you appear to be based in chicago, is there a reason you are so worried about gov tracking but put your real name and phone number in your bio?
This just seems like all incredibly inconvenient as a training exercise but I can't think of real reason someone on hn would do this only to make it very easy to ID them in other ways.
This just seems like all incredibly inconvenient as a training exercise but I can't think of real reason someone on hn would do this only to make it very easy to ID them in other ways.
That's likely a burner number. sneak's website states that he is out of Berlin. He got ya!
...my SIM card is an SF number, my mailing address is in Manhattan, my domain name ends in .berlin, and I'm in precisely zero of the cities listed in this thread right now. ;)
WiFi calling
Still need to be in WiFi range for that… 90% of smartphone things are better on a computer, only convenience makes ppl use the smartphone, but a big part of that convenience is mobile service and GPS. Take that out and you may as well get a dumb phone and use your laptop for everything else.
Linked to your wifi, paid by you
WiFi calling doesn’t use the device’s VPN settings?
Even if it doesn’t, the poster said they also use a router VPN.
Even if it doesn’t, the poster said they also use a router VPN.
The phone number itself is linked to them in someway. Paying for your physical device in cash is meaningless if you’re gonna connect to internet you own and use credit cards, etc to operate it.
I think that’s definitely true in some countries but not all. For example, you can buy burner phone numbers (prepaid) in the United States without presenting ID.
Do they do this even in their EU stores?
If so, is there any source showing that? I'm sure some of the DPAs would be excited to hear about a company using biometrics, likely in violation of Art. 9 GDPR.
If so, is there any source showing that? I'm sure some of the DPAs would be excited to hear about a company using biometrics, likely in violation of Art. 9 GDPR.
But... Do you use face id to unlock your phone?