You do not need to use a rewards card or other supermarket-specific identifier. Simply paying with anything other than cash (normally a credit or debit card) identifies you to the supermarket. A search for all transactions using that card gives a pretty good indication of your shopping habits.
This is why I caved several years ago and opted into a rewards scheme. Yes, it gives the supermarket a bit more information about me, but I save $10 pretty much every time I go shopping. That extra information (personally identifying information such as name and address) is less incrementally valuable to the supermarket than that âperson 17493265 buys these productsâ.
It is open to government to regulate FR. Are they going to? That will determine which uses of FR are legal and which are illegal. Thereâs no absolute right or wrong but at the moment itâs the Wild West.
(Yes, I understand that self-banning problem gamblers is already government regulation and not a choice on the part of the business.)
The fight for privacy is futile. Iâm starting to think we cannot stop this wave of peopleâs private information being collected and available to all.
We hand over the lot daily; starting with our kidâs signing up for anything online or home school apps using cameras and selling the dayâs activities to the highest bidder. Letting Cosco take photos of our face & drivers license just so we shop for groceries. Oh yes, give the sales person at JB LoFly your mobile number just so you get that receipt. Most of us donât care.
For good measure weâll throw on the table - Letâs not forget as long as there are hackers there are no privacy policies.
Passing on your information doesnât disappear, itâs there building up over your lifetime. Society is just going to have with that. This wave cannot be stopped.
Having a defeatist attitude is never of any help.
I am always very pleasantly surprised by the updates from the Choice Campaigns, they achieve what would seem to be the impossible!
Thank you drawing attention to this very important issue. I had no idea this was happening. It is very scary.
The use of facial recognition software by shops is totally wrong and must be banned. Even if shops start informing the customers about it (which they are not doing currently) it is still totally wrong.
It is wrong and illegal to punch someone in the face, and it is still wrong and illegal to punch someone in the face if you tell them before you do it âI am going to punch you in the faceâ. The same legal standards should apply to invasion of privacy.
Some people may argue âIf you donât like it, you donât have to enter the shopâ. What about when all shops have started doing it? Are we supposed to live without ever buying anything?
Technically, you can buy online and thereby avoid FR. Of course you are subject to surveillance in a myriad of other ways if you buy online - so you are trading one evil for another.
Fight it! Look up and contact as many organisations as you can about your privacy rights, contact members of parliament, support Choice in its campaignâŠmake a fuss.
Itâs not right for stores to have Facial Recognition cameras to snap everyone entering the premises, thereâs too much escalation in shop lifting detection as it is, and sadly it doesnât even seem to be working.
The simplest method which is to have more staff around is not even considered!
The Choice article regarding some retail stores admitting to using facial recognition is concerning. Three store responded, but I suspect there may be many more that have chosen to stay silent.
Personally, I believe that the use of facial recognition technology for surveillance is a very concerning trend.
We want law enforcement to be better equipped to catch criminals, and surveillance information (facial recognition and phone tracking) can already be purchased (at least overseas). Here in Victoria there are surveillance cameras on nearly every intersection. This is in addition to speed cameras.
I met a guy who worked in the section of government that monitored those cameras. This was in a room with many monitors, obviously collecting tons of data on us. But what is it used for?
Do we want this to continue? I suspect the lure of the capability, and power, this technology provides will be too great to resist. But we should at least consider the matter and hopefully institute limits on the use of our personal data.
One useful comparison may be to the powers police have to ask an individual to provide or verify their identity. They are currently limited to prescribed requirements and cannot be requested without lawful purpose.
If a store is using FR to record and recognise or ID all store customers, are they in practice exercising a greater right than the community permits a police officer acting lawfully. One reference to when a police officer can request details offers numerous examples.
One might ask if a store should have a right to use FR to ID customers whom itâs not reasonable to suspect of shop lifting etc. The process of elimination is used in police investigations. Participation for the majority is voluntary. Itâs certainly unclear as to exactly how each business is using the details of every individual. If itâs voluntary when entering the store, it would only be fair to know fully what we have volunteered for.
Alternately one can volunteer to be part of a tracked shopping experience by joining Westfield Plus. For a limited time only get 4 hrs free parking at selected Westfield shopping centres. T&Cs apply. FR not a requirement. However Westfield can change the T&Cs at any time. There is even a provision that allows Westfield to novate or assign their rights to another party user consent not required.
Following our investigation and extensive public outcry, media reports have confirmed Kmart and Bunnings will temporarily pause the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in their stores. The full list of retailers who are not using FRT is here.
