Big Brother Sneaking In?

[SYZ]

Orwell must be smiling in his grave.

A Sydney NSW traveller spotted a sign on a tram door
on his morning commute to work, and what it told him
made him stop catching Sydney's light rail.



As he hopped aboard in September, the web developer
noticed the poster on the inside of the tram's doors
advising passengers of a "trial" taking place.  Passengers
could scan a QR code to find out more.

That's how he discovered his MAC address, the 12-digit
number assigned to devices like phones, was being collected
in an opt-out only system from the moment he got on
the tram.

The QR code led to a NSW government web page that told
passengers "wi-fi sensor technology" was being used on
some Sydney light rail services in a trial "to collect data to
help improve the network".
 
Passengers were reassured(?) data pinged from phones would
be "filtered, anonymised and aggregated" but also told "the MAC
address from your device may, if collated with other information
about that person, be capable of identifying an individual".

To opt out of the trial, passengers must either have wi-fi capabilities
turned off on their devices before they get on the light rail or give
their MAC address within three hours of it being collected by filling
out an online form.

A spokesperson for Transdev, the private operators of the light rail,
said their collection process means "there is no way to link a MAC
address to other data or an individual".

  —I don't know enough about the intricacies of MAC addresses in
     order to form an opinion on the these conflicting claims.  The
     passenger said it can link to you, but the company says it can't,
     but also, confusingly, says it can.

[SYZ]

One of Australia's largest retailers of hardware and housewares
—Bunnings—has been found guilty of breaching Australia's
privacy with its in-store use of a facial recognition technology
system.

The system, via CCTV, captured the faces of every person,
likely hundreds of thousands of individuals who entered
63 Bunnings stores in Victoria and NSW between November
2018 and November 2021.

"Facial recognition technology may have been an efficient
option available to Bunnings in its well-intentioned efforts
to address unlawful activity, which included incidents of
violence and shop-lifting". Investigators said "just because
a technology may be helpful or convenient, does not mean
its use is justifiable".

In this instance, deploying facial recognition technology was
the most intrusive option, disproportionately interfering with
the privacy of everyone who entered its stores, not just high-risk
individuals,” investigators said.

It was determined that Bunnings collected individuals’ sensitive
information without consent, failed to take reasonable steps to
notify individuals that their personal information was being collected,
and did not include required information in its privacy policy.

Bunnings has paused (but not yet dismantled) its use of facial
recognition technology pending the outcome of an appeal to
the Federal Privacy Commissioner.

I know this issue is an old saw, but as far as I'm concerned—and
assuming I'm not carrying out an offensive or criminal act—why
should I be concerned about facial recognition cameras in stores?

How is the fact that I purchased some paint and sandpaper going
to affect my life in any measurable or impactful way?    It's not.

[pattylt]

I seem to recall discussions about facial recognition uses in the US and the rights of privacy conflicting with the fact that if you’re out in public, then you don’t have the right to not be seen. Not sure where it went from there…

[Thumpalumpacus]

The use of criminals as rationale for this ignores the fact that the vast majority of customers aren't in fact criminals.

Indeed -- speaking as a retail manager -- most theft, upwards of 70%, is committed by employees and not customers.

[Rhythmcs]

I think you must have mistyped employees when you meant employers. Wage theft is the leading form of theft in the us. 15b annually....that we know of.

Employers say they need MOAR Securitie! to distract us from the fact that they are robbing us blind, and not the other way around. They'll performatively humiliate their customers knowing this. SYZ asked up there what impact some scraper knowing we purchase paint and sandpaper has on our lives...and believing that it's meaningless is exactly why they have the cash and we, do not. They wouldn't spend the money to collect the data otherwise.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you must have mistyped employees when you meant employers.  Wage theft is the leading form of theft in the us.  15b annually....that we know of.

Nah, I was just speaking operationally, not systematically.

[Rhythmcs]

I guess, but a more fact based version from before would be that neither customers nor employees were stealing anything in any significant amount. You were, we were, as members of retail management...who, in fact..steal and steal more profitably, than anyone else in the us. Just another example of how we've been conditioned to complicity. You, me, the housecat, all of us. We cant even talk about this stuff without fundamentally misinforming everyone, ourselves included and foremost. We causually say shit like "the employees are stealing". It's not true, it's never been true. Not in part, not in whole, not in spirit. Not at all.

The employees are fine. The customers are fine. Whenever we think to ourselves "well, -I- wasn't stealing"..good for us, but that just means our boss was. And I know, I know, you're one of the good ones..I just respond poorly and reflexively when we casually implicate the wrong man on account of our indoctrination.

[brewerb]

None of what SYZ posted bothers me, I don't care.

[Dānu]

None of what SYZ posted bothers me, I don't care.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just respond poorly and reflexively when we casually implicate the wrong man on account of our indoctrination.

Agreed, you're trying to shoehorn your larger social point into my smaller retail point.

For the record, as a manager, I didn't steal, either directly by taking money or stuff, or indirectly by being paid an obscene amount. You should stick to speaking for yourself on that score.