Industry groups say the move to facial scans in supermarkets is about safety, but analysts say that once the technology is installed, its "scope creep" paves the way for options like discriminatory pricing.
We made jokes and memes when the Chinese started doing this and introduced their whole “Social Credit Score” scheme. And a decade later, here we are.
On the one hand, there’s a certain attraction to being able to tell someone who deservers it that they can’t come into your shops/restaurants/cafes again. Imagine being so obnoxious that you’ve been banned from Colesworth, Aldi, Bunnings, Maccas - you are prevented from entering any of their stores. As much as we dislike some of these stores’ practices, not being able to enter them at all would be a real hassle.
On the other hand, giving employees the power to dispatch that sort of judgement on someone would obviously come at risk of being abused. You’d have people banning their exes, school bullies or for just any random reason.
Supermarkets started with exit gates and bagging-area cameras.
Fun fact: Those gates are decorative. You can just swing them open.
“Are you banned for life from all supermarkets if you walk out with a pack of chewing gum?” he said.
Here’s the other side of the coin: I do believe stores should be able to deny people with a history of shoplifting. My concerns with the technology have to do with my privacy - and to the devices being accurate or abused. I don’t really have sympathy to people who have genuinely done something to earn a ban. If everyone did the right thing, they wouldn’t have any excuse to try introducing this technology in the first place.
But that doesn’t mean I want the stores to be able to intrude on my privacy using “safety” as an excuse. I don’t trust that safety is the real driving reason behind this technology.
Can’t wait for the wave of people kicked out of stores because the AI shit the bed and confused them with someone else.
I just think the key to doing this stuff right is to make the executive level personally and financially responsible for any mistakes and any crimes, “Oh Coles shared too much info offshore and led to a data leak with identity theft… Hope the board enjoys spending the next 4 years in general population.” Oh and time to sell the yacht and the mansion to pay the fine.
Apparently they get paid the big dollars because they make the big calls, time for them to face the big risks too. That would keep the bastards honest.
Of course it will never happen, we like corruption in government way too much to make rich people face consequences.
A number of months ago when I went to out fuel in my car the pump wouldn’t start, I went inside and was told my car wasn’t registered. I said it was, looked it up on the government website and showed them. The machine had misread my number plate. If that can be stuffed up, it seems inevitable people are going to be misidentified by the supermarkets.
That’s wild. What country? Australia? This is the sort of overreach and misidentification I can see happening so much more often with the prevalence of AI “security” systems.
We made jokes and memes when the Chinese started doing this and introduced their whole “Social Credit Score” scheme. And a decade later, here we are.
On the one hand, there’s a certain attraction to being able to tell someone who deservers it that they can’t come into your shops/restaurants/cafes again. Imagine being so obnoxious that you’ve been banned from Colesworth, Aldi, Bunnings, Maccas - you are prevented from entering any of their stores. As much as we dislike some of these stores’ practices, not being able to enter them at all would be a real hassle.
On the other hand, giving employees the power to dispatch that sort of judgement on someone would obviously come at risk of being abused. You’d have people banning their exes, school bullies or for just any random reason.
Fun fact: Those gates are decorative. You can just swing them open.
Here’s the other side of the coin: I do believe stores should be able to deny people with a history of shoplifting. My concerns with the technology have to do with my privacy - and to the devices being accurate or abused. I don’t really have sympathy to people who have genuinely done something to earn a ban. If everyone did the right thing, they wouldn’t have any excuse to try introducing this technology in the first place.
But that doesn’t mean I want the stores to be able to intrude on my privacy using “safety” as an excuse. I don’t trust that safety is the real driving reason behind this technology.
Can’t wait for the wave of people kicked out of stores because the AI shit the bed and confused them with someone else.
I just think the key to doing this stuff right is to make the executive level personally and financially responsible for any mistakes and any crimes, “Oh Coles shared too much info offshore and led to a data leak with identity theft… Hope the board enjoys spending the next 4 years in general population.” Oh and time to sell the yacht and the mansion to pay the fine.
Apparently they get paid the big dollars because they make the big calls, time for them to face the big risks too. That would keep the bastards honest.
Of course it will never happen, we like corruption in government way too much to make rich people face consequences.
A number of months ago when I went to out fuel in my car the pump wouldn’t start, I went inside and was told my car wasn’t registered. I said it was, looked it up on the government website and showed them. The machine had misread my number plate. If that can be stuffed up, it seems inevitable people are going to be misidentified by the supermarkets.
That’s wild. What country? Australia? This is the sort of overreach and misidentification I can see happening so much more often with the prevalence of AI “security” systems.
Yes in Australia, at a United Petroleum