<story><title>Retailers are turning to facial recognition software (2018)</title><url>https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/leticiamiranda/retail-companies-are-testing-out-facial-recognition-at</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>shadowgovt</author><text>I want the law to allow such things, because it is extremely useful to me as a consumer and a customer if the system can automatically identify me and attach me to my past history with the company.&lt;p&gt;This dimension of privacy is still open for debate.</text></item><item><author>neiman</author><text>&amp;quot;privacy advocates and industry stakeholders are debating ... how shoppers should be informed about when their faces are scanned&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t want to be informed when my face are being scanned, in the same way that I don&amp;#x27;t want to be informed when a website is about to sell my data. What I want is for the law not to allow such things.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>teflodollar</author><text>Strongly disagree. While I can accept that it&amp;#x27;s supposedly valuable  for you as a consumer to be &amp;quot;identified and attached&amp;quot; to a company—even though it&amp;#x27;s something that I want nothing to do do with and consider a net bad for society—the notion that whole-scale identification of persons entering a store may be an acceptable default behavior is absurd, even before considering the so-called &amp;quot;dimension of privacy.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;As the other child comment mentioned, there are many ways to identify yourself to a store that don&amp;#x27;t require facial recognition. The YMCA for example has a system that lets users track their exercise history; there&amp;#x27;s no reason Macy&amp;#x27;s couldn&amp;#x27;t do the same for your purchases. If indiscriminate ID&amp;#x27;ing is the default position, then you have decided that _your convenience is more important than the freedom of every other person in the store._ It should be the responsibility of the person who wants this convenience to opt in, not the responsibility of the rest of us to opt out.&lt;p&gt;The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate. But if it&amp;#x27;s not, we fortunately have hundreds (thousands?) of cases of corporate consumer abuse and irresponsible data storage to point to.</text></comment>
<story><title>Retailers are turning to facial recognition software (2018)</title><url>https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/leticiamiranda/retail-companies-are-testing-out-facial-recognition-at</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>shadowgovt</author><text>I want the law to allow such things, because it is extremely useful to me as a consumer and a customer if the system can automatically identify me and attach me to my past history with the company.&lt;p&gt;This dimension of privacy is still open for debate.</text></item><item><author>neiman</author><text>&amp;quot;privacy advocates and industry stakeholders are debating ... how shoppers should be informed about when their faces are scanned&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t want to be informed when my face are being scanned, in the same way that I don&amp;#x27;t want to be informed when a website is about to sell my data. What I want is for the law not to allow such things.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>krick</author><text>Get their member card if you want. Your consent shouldn&amp;#x27;t affect other people.</text></comment>