Bored Panda works better on our iPhone app
Continue in app Continue in browser

BoredPanda Add post form topAdd Post
Tooltip close

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here.

Hardware Giant Ordered To Stop Facial Recognition Tech Use Releases Horrific Footage In Response
46

Hardware Giant Ordered To Stop Facial Recognition Tech Use Releases Horrific Footage In Response

ADVERTISEMENT

Australian hardware retail chain Bunnings was found to have breached Australians’ privacy by using facial recognition technology (FRT) in 63 stores between 2018 and 2021. The Australian Privacy Commissioner ruled that the retailer collected sensitive data without consent. Bunnings has since defended the practice, arguing it was essential for safety and crime prevention.

Highlights
  • Bunnings breached privacy by using facial recognition tech in 63 stores without consent.
  • The Australian Privacy Commissioner ruled that Bunnings' use of FRT violated privacy laws.
  • Bunnings defended FRT for safety and crime prevention, releasing footage of violent incidents.
Points of View
  • Privacy Advocate POV: Strongly opposes FRT due to privacy breaches and lack of consent.

  • Security Enthusiast POV: Supports FRT for its effectiveness in reducing crime and protecting staff.

  • Business Analyst POV: Questions the cost-effectiveness of FRT versus its impact on customer trust.

Bunnings released security footage of staff members being threatened and assaulted in response to findings from Australia’s privacy watchdog that the company breached the country’s privacy, News.com.au reported on Tuesday (November 19).

The retailer reportedly tested FRT in 63 stores in Victoria and New South Wales from November 2018 to November 2021.

As a result, the Australian Privacy Commissioner ruled that Bunnings’ use of FRT breached privacy laws by collecting sensitive information without customers’ consent. 

Australian hardware retail chain Bunnings was found to have breached Australians’ privacy 

Image credits: realestate

The Commissioner found that the technology disproportionately interfered with the privacy of all customers entering the stores, not just high-risk individuals, and that Bunnings failed to adequately inform people their data was being collected. 

Consequently, Bunnings was ordered to cease using FRT and to stop collecting facial images without consent.

ADVERTISEMENT

In response to the ruling, Bunnings managing director Mike Schneider defended the technology in a press release published on Tuesday.

Image credits: bunnings

Schneider emphasized that the technology was used with strict controls and helped reduce incidents in trial stores. 

“We had hoped that based on our submissions, the Commissioner would accept our position that the use of FRT appropriately balanced our privacy obligations and the need to protect our team, customers, and suppliers against the ongoing and increasing exposure to violent and organized crime, perpetrated by a small number of known and repeat offenders,” Schneider said. 

According to the manager, the Commissioner acknowledged that FRT had the potential to protect against serious issues, such as crime and violent behavior.

It was condemned for using facial recognition technology (FRT) in 63 stores between 2018 and 2021

Image credits: news.com.au

“This was the very reason Bunnings used the technology,” Schneider explained. “Our use of FRT was never about convenience or saving money but was all about safeguarding our business and protecting our team, customers, and suppliers from violent, aggressive behavior, criminal conduct and preventing them from being physically or mentally harmed by these individuals.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

As per the official statement, Bunnings trialed FRT in select Victoria and New South Wales stores from 2018 to 2021 as part of broader security measures aimed at reducing theft and ensuring customer and staff safety. 

The technology targeted a small group of repeat offenders responsible for most incidents and significantly reduced theft and violent encounters compared to stores without FRT. 

Image credits: news.com.auv

Schneider revealed: “Every day we work hard to earn the trust of our team, suppliers, and customers and this includes keeping people safe in and around our stores. 

“It’s our highest priority and a responsibility we take very seriously. Across the retail sector, abuse, threat, and assaults in stores continue to rise, with a 50 percent increase at Bunnings last year alone. 

“Statistics don’t convey the real impact it has on the lives of our team and our customers, and we provided the OAIC [Office of the Australian Information Commissioner] with numerous examples of violent and abusive situations in our stores.”

The Australian Privacy Commissioner ruled the retailer collected sensitive data without consent

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credits: news.com.au

Bunnings expressed deep disappointment with the Commissioner’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of FRT in protecting staff and customers from violence and abuse. 

The company argued that ensuring safety, even for a single person, justifies the use of FRT, which helps identify repeat offenders and prevent incidents. 

Bunnings also noted ongoing consultations with unions and governments to address the growing challenges faced by frontline workers and seek better legislative protections.

Image credits: news.com.au

FRT was part of a broader security strategy, supported by training, resources, and strict access controls to ensure accurate identification, Schneider said.

The company updated its privacy policy and store signs during the trial to clearly inform customers about the use of FRT. 

The press release further highlighted that theft and violent behavior were major concerns, with a significant portion of incidents involving repeat offenders, and stressed that customer privacy was always protected throughout the process.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bunnings has since defended the practice, arguing it was essential for safety and crime prevention

Image credits: news.com.au

ADVERTISEMENT

“We would never act in a way that we believe would jeopardize customer privacy,” Schneider concluded.

Australian Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said despite the efforts being “well-intentioned” to address unlawful activity, the technology was not justifiable, News.com.au reported.

Kind said in a statement on Tuesday: “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.”

Image credits: news.com.au news.com.au

The Privacy Commissioner reportedly determined that Bunnings collected facial recognition data from potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals without their consent and failed to properly inform them. 

Bunnings has paused the use of the technology and plans to seek a review of the ruling, asserting that facial recognition is essential for safety.

ADVERTISEMENT

Previously released CCTV footage showed violent incidents at Bunnings stores, including a man threatening staff with a knife, hammer, and even a gun, as well as staff being assaulted.

Bunnings released security footage of staff members being threatened and assaulted in response to findings from Australia’s privacy watchdog

Image credits: news.com.au

During the trial, FRT was used to identify and remove individuals with prior records of abusive or criminal behavior. 

Commissioner Kind reportedly said facial images were sensitive information because “we can’t change our face” and therefore, consent was generally needed to collect these images, “even if briefly.”

She added: “This decision should serve as a reminder to all organisations to proactively consider how the use of technology might impact privacy and to make sure privacy obligations are met.

“Organisations should be aware that ensuring the use of emerging technologies aligns with community expectations and regulatory requirements is high among our priorities.”

ADVERTISEMENT

On Tuesday, the OAIC released a new privacy guide for businesses using FRT. The non-profit consumer advocacy organization, which exposed Bunnings, Kmart, and The Good Guys’ use of the technology in 2022, called the Privacy Commissioner’s ruling a “landmark decision” but stressed that more action is needed. 

Rafi Alam from Choice criticized Australia’s outdated privacy laws, noting that the technology’s use has only increased during the investigation.

In 2022, it was revealed Bunnings was one of a number of retailers using FRT in stores to check the face of every customer entering the store against a database of banned customers, The Guardian reported on Tuesday.

FRT captures images of people’s faces from video cameras – such as CCTV footage – as a unique faceprint that is then stored and can be compared with other faceprints, according to The Guardian.

“Taking care of your staff and keeping them safe is important,” a reader commented

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Ic_polls

Poll Question

Thanks! Check out the results:

Share on Facebook
Andréa Oldereide

Andréa Oldereide

Writer, BoredPanda staff

Read more »

I’m a journalist who works as Bored Panda’s News Team's Senior Writer. The news team produces stories focused on pop culture. Whenever I get the opportunity and the time, I investigate and produce my own exclusive stories, where I get to explore a wider range of topics. Some examples include: “Doberman Tobias the viral medical service dog” and “The lawyer who brought rare uterine cancer that affects 9/11 victims to light”. You've got a tip? email me: andrea.o@boredpanda.com

Read less »
Andréa Oldereide

Andréa Oldereide

Writer, BoredPanda staff

I’m a journalist who works as Bored Panda’s News Team's Senior Writer. The news team produces stories focused on pop culture. Whenever I get the opportunity and the time, I investigate and produce my own exclusive stories, where I get to explore a wider range of topics. Some examples include: “Doberman Tobias the viral medical service dog” and “The lawyer who brought rare uterine cancer that affects 9/11 victims to light”. You've got a tip? email me: andrea.o@boredpanda.com

Donata Leskauskaite

Donata Leskauskaite

Author, BoredPanda staff

Read more »

Hey there! I'm a Visual Editor in News team. My responsibility is to ensure that you can read the story not just through text, but also through photos. I get to work with a variety of topics ranging from celebrity drama to mind-blowing Nasa cosmic news. And let me tell you, that's what makes this job an absolute blast! Outside of work, you can find me sweating it out in dance classes or unleashing my creativity by drawing and creating digital paintings of different characters that lives in my head. I also love spending time outdoors and play board games with my friends.

Read less »

Donata Leskauskaite

Donata Leskauskaite

Author, BoredPanda staff

Hey there! I'm a Visual Editor in News team. My responsibility is to ensure that you can read the story not just through text, but also through photos. I get to work with a variety of topics ranging from celebrity drama to mind-blowing Nasa cosmic news. And let me tell you, that's what makes this job an absolute blast! Outside of work, you can find me sweating it out in dance classes or unleashing my creativity by drawing and creating digital paintings of different characters that lives in my head. I also love spending time outdoors and play board games with my friends.

What do you think ?
Add photo comments
POST
Andy
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Bunnings seem to be missing the point of this ruling. Nobody has said that they were using the technology for nefarious means, or as a workaround to cut costs etc. the commissioner even started that they agreed they had done it with good intentions. The issue is that personal data, especially facial scans, are highly regulated due to their sensitive nature and risk of misuse. The issue here was that they were not getting the consents or making the disclosures required by law to gather that data. It's not about protecting criminals, it's about protecting the rest of the populations data, and having controls in place that anyone looking to use that data needs to follow

Tabitha
Community Member
1 day ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The entire point has to do with Bunnings not informing the public and allowing them to choose to give their informed consent to being seen on such tech, or to not patronize their store ever again because of it. Basically, had they advertised the fact that they were using—-or even just testing—- facial recognition technology in their stores, and repeated the information by posting it in big, brightly colored, hard to miss letters and easily understood, crystal clear language on the front door and everywhere else it couldn’t be missed, then they would have given the general public their right to consent to it or not. The CCTV in public places is made very clear in the same way, signs everywhere and people being told right off the bat where the cameras are, so there’s an immediate expectation of it by anyone going to those areas, thereby giving the public the choice to go there or not. Advertising it also can (not always will, but often will, because most crooks are not smart) become a deterrent for all but the most ballsy (or downright thickheaded) criminals, as they would know they are being watched and recorded with the most up to date tech available.

Load More Replies...
Kylie Anderson
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Let’s be clear, a) if Bunnings really cared about the safety of their staff, they’d hire security guards (posted a $2.25 BILLION dollar profit last year, so it’s not as though they can’t afford it) and b) FRT is a flawed technology- so much so, even in the USA where it’s been used for well over a decade, it’s still not grounds for a warrant and is inadmissible in court! This is a disgraceful attempt by a multibillion dollar conglomerate to guilt people into surrendering their civil rights so that the company can exploit them for financial gain in the future!

Steve Sharpe
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

@Kylie Anderson The shareholders of the Westfarmers group collectively gained $2.4B AU in the last financial year, Westfarmers itself retained $0.2B against serviced debts of $44.7B, what fraction of that relates to Bunnings I couldn't tell you - this doesn't make your argument any more or less valid of course, I'm just pointing out that the person who told you that information was hoping that you didn't understand how company statements work or know what google is, so you should probably tell them off for that. As far as evidentiary standard goes I'd point out that the US legal system is.. "interesting" when compared to the modern, western world. Personally I'd prefer to spend my money in shops where the workers feel safe and empowered rather than constantly being in fight or flight mode, but we all have our priorities I guess. I'd also prefer those workers get a better wage and I pay lower prices than the shop squandering their budget on the usual crop of 5'9" 10 stone weaklings-

Load More Replies...
Donald
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

That one person stealing Ryobi tools while brandishing a knife makes no sense. At least go for Milwaukee or Bosch if you're going to throw your freedom away, amateur.

MaggieMay85
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Hey, I like my Ryobi, probably because it was cheaper and I didn’t steal them.

Load More Replies...
Bernd Herbert
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is the stupidest thing one can say in regards of data privacy

Bookworm
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Exactly. This is the entire point that a lot of the commenters on the original post seem to be missing. For one thing, regardless of what they're using it for, there have been so many retail security breaches that leak people's credit cards all over the internet that I do not trust any company's security to actually protect my most important data. For another, mass invasion of everyone's privacy because 'only criminals want to hide things' is in basically every dystopian novel ever - do people not read anymore? Also, mass data collection is how they develop algorithms that pick out 'abnormal' people - your completely uninteresting information helps form a pattern that can be used to target someone else. (Hence, why men are being encouraged to download period trackers and input nonsense.) Finally, 23&Me's meltdown is the ultimate case for 'don't hand your biometrics to a corporation.' I don't care what's in their policies, the second they go out of business, your data is for sale.

Load More Replies...
Ben Aziza
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

You have to disclose to the public that there are cameras. It is that simple. All privately owned business and public space have an obligation to disclose that. If they don't THEY SHOULD.

John L
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Doesn't look like it prevented, much crime....just documented it.

Janissary35680
Community Member
Premium
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Deterring crime would be helped by the prominent display of big signs warning that AI-assisted FRT is being used and by entering the premises, customers consent to this. This is what the commission is saying. Bunnings needs to pay their lawyers more or get new ones.

Load More Replies...
Jane No Dough
Community Member
19 hours ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Hello, facial recognition programs DON'T WORK!! Television and cinematic license is not based on real life. While white people may receive a large percentage of accurate results, black, brown and even Asian people DO NOT. It is a fact that the developers, manufacturers and sucker governments that wasted your tax dollars on this software don't want you to understand! Do the least bit of research before shouting about how great it is, look it up on the internet. Better yet go to the Algorithmic Justice League website and read a little. Or watch the PBS Frontline episode about UK police using these programs as an excuse for harassing brown folks just trying to go about their day. FR programs do not work unless there is significant color contrasting in a person's facial features!

Max Fox
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

They are taking videos, and that should be enough. Use of FRT should be limited to organizations like law enforcement, and only in the case that somebody is caught on tape committing a crime. The store should not have access to the private data of regular citizens walking through the shop.

pep Ito
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My concern is what happens to the stored data, what happens if a person identified as a thief is redeemed and rehabilitated either by serving time or by choice, does he/she remain in the face database and will not be able to enter those stores for the rest of his/her life?

Rayne OfSalt
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The stored information was used to collate data from social media then sold to advertising companies.

Load More Replies...
Rayne OfSalt
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Yeah, so most of you aren't Australian and have absolutely no idea how evil the people who own and running Bunnings are. Their release of these videos is corp-washing, attempting to make themselves look like a poor little victim of evil leftist government overreach. Don't believe the lies, do NOT believe the corporation. Enough with the "but gubmints are teh bad!" garbage.

somnomania (she/her, queer)
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

i don't usually support frt but it seems like there are some real problems with crime in australia! if these things were happening even with the frt, i'd hate to think what would be happening otherwise. but others have made excellent points; there are other options that would be better, like hiring more security.

Roberta Surprenant
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It seems that a sign posted at entry informing customers that the technology was in use would give them a chance to shop elsewhere. Otherwise consider it informed consent.

A Jones
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I be fine if this sort of thing was consensual at the get-go, may have prevented this sort of retaliation and lack of public trust.

featherytoad
Community Member
2 days ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I don't know what it matters about personal data being breached/gathering data at this point. Don't all websites that you buy from do that, grocery store saver cards or, that you have to have an account with, such as paying bills online. What's the difference between what they are doing and CCTVs outside of every building you walk buy? If I'm missing something, please explain. I'm in America and I've had numerous alerts from my credit card company that my social security number was breached, had to replace my Chase card twice and had someone use my debit card to buy $400 worth of c**p from Walmart. I just froze my reports and keep my CCs locked. It's just par for the course now. Every ones data was breached a long time ago, especially when Experian had that data breach.

zovjraar me
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

i don't have an issue with security cameras, but FRT is not needed.

Manana Man
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There are many situations where it's reasonable to expect privacy, but expecting not to be observed when you're out in public seems over the top.

Steve
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

So how come nobody worries about the government using FRT on cameras where the general population walks and gathers? How come it's a concern when a business uses it.

Apatheist Account2
Community Member
2 days ago

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

If you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear from security cameras. Sadly for the law abiding, that's not guaranteed, but it should be.

Libstak
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It's the data collection on individuals without their consent. That can be used and sold for targeted marketing and invasive government surveillance in theory. At some point, we just want to anonymously go about our lives. With AI as it is, it also raises the question of the data being abused by being sold out or otherwise retrieved by nefarious groups and suddenly your image is all over the net with altered backgrounds and edited circumstances...I don't trust any Australian company with my image or data, we are already harassed by overseas call centres that know a hell of a lot more about us than they ever should.

Load More Replies...
Andy
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Bunnings seem to be missing the point of this ruling. Nobody has said that they were using the technology for nefarious means, or as a workaround to cut costs etc. the commissioner even started that they agreed they had done it with good intentions. The issue is that personal data, especially facial scans, are highly regulated due to their sensitive nature and risk of misuse. The issue here was that they were not getting the consents or making the disclosures required by law to gather that data. It's not about protecting criminals, it's about protecting the rest of the populations data, and having controls in place that anyone looking to use that data needs to follow

Tabitha
Community Member
1 day ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The entire point has to do with Bunnings not informing the public and allowing them to choose to give their informed consent to being seen on such tech, or to not patronize their store ever again because of it. Basically, had they advertised the fact that they were using—-or even just testing—- facial recognition technology in their stores, and repeated the information by posting it in big, brightly colored, hard to miss letters and easily understood, crystal clear language on the front door and everywhere else it couldn’t be missed, then they would have given the general public their right to consent to it or not. The CCTV in public places is made very clear in the same way, signs everywhere and people being told right off the bat where the cameras are, so there’s an immediate expectation of it by anyone going to those areas, thereby giving the public the choice to go there or not. Advertising it also can (not always will, but often will, because most crooks are not smart) become a deterrent for all but the most ballsy (or downright thickheaded) criminals, as they would know they are being watched and recorded with the most up to date tech available.

Load More Replies...
Kylie Anderson
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Let’s be clear, a) if Bunnings really cared about the safety of their staff, they’d hire security guards (posted a $2.25 BILLION dollar profit last year, so it’s not as though they can’t afford it) and b) FRT is a flawed technology- so much so, even in the USA where it’s been used for well over a decade, it’s still not grounds for a warrant and is inadmissible in court! This is a disgraceful attempt by a multibillion dollar conglomerate to guilt people into surrendering their civil rights so that the company can exploit them for financial gain in the future!

Steve Sharpe
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

@Kylie Anderson The shareholders of the Westfarmers group collectively gained $2.4B AU in the last financial year, Westfarmers itself retained $0.2B against serviced debts of $44.7B, what fraction of that relates to Bunnings I couldn't tell you - this doesn't make your argument any more or less valid of course, I'm just pointing out that the person who told you that information was hoping that you didn't understand how company statements work or know what google is, so you should probably tell them off for that. As far as evidentiary standard goes I'd point out that the US legal system is.. "interesting" when compared to the modern, western world. Personally I'd prefer to spend my money in shops where the workers feel safe and empowered rather than constantly being in fight or flight mode, but we all have our priorities I guess. I'd also prefer those workers get a better wage and I pay lower prices than the shop squandering their budget on the usual crop of 5'9" 10 stone weaklings-

Load More Replies...
Donald
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

That one person stealing Ryobi tools while brandishing a knife makes no sense. At least go for Milwaukee or Bosch if you're going to throw your freedom away, amateur.

MaggieMay85
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Hey, I like my Ryobi, probably because it was cheaper and I didn’t steal them.

Load More Replies...
Bernd Herbert
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is the stupidest thing one can say in regards of data privacy

Bookworm
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Exactly. This is the entire point that a lot of the commenters on the original post seem to be missing. For one thing, regardless of what they're using it for, there have been so many retail security breaches that leak people's credit cards all over the internet that I do not trust any company's security to actually protect my most important data. For another, mass invasion of everyone's privacy because 'only criminals want to hide things' is in basically every dystopian novel ever - do people not read anymore? Also, mass data collection is how they develop algorithms that pick out 'abnormal' people - your completely uninteresting information helps form a pattern that can be used to target someone else. (Hence, why men are being encouraged to download period trackers and input nonsense.) Finally, 23&Me's meltdown is the ultimate case for 'don't hand your biometrics to a corporation.' I don't care what's in their policies, the second they go out of business, your data is for sale.

Load More Replies...
Ben Aziza
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

You have to disclose to the public that there are cameras. It is that simple. All privately owned business and public space have an obligation to disclose that. If they don't THEY SHOULD.

John L
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Doesn't look like it prevented, much crime....just documented it.

Janissary35680
Community Member
Premium
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Deterring crime would be helped by the prominent display of big signs warning that AI-assisted FRT is being used and by entering the premises, customers consent to this. This is what the commission is saying. Bunnings needs to pay their lawyers more or get new ones.

Load More Replies...
Jane No Dough
Community Member
19 hours ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Hello, facial recognition programs DON'T WORK!! Television and cinematic license is not based on real life. While white people may receive a large percentage of accurate results, black, brown and even Asian people DO NOT. It is a fact that the developers, manufacturers and sucker governments that wasted your tax dollars on this software don't want you to understand! Do the least bit of research before shouting about how great it is, look it up on the internet. Better yet go to the Algorithmic Justice League website and read a little. Or watch the PBS Frontline episode about UK police using these programs as an excuse for harassing brown folks just trying to go about their day. FR programs do not work unless there is significant color contrasting in a person's facial features!

Max Fox
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

They are taking videos, and that should be enough. Use of FRT should be limited to organizations like law enforcement, and only in the case that somebody is caught on tape committing a crime. The store should not have access to the private data of regular citizens walking through the shop.

pep Ito
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

My concern is what happens to the stored data, what happens if a person identified as a thief is redeemed and rehabilitated either by serving time or by choice, does he/she remain in the face database and will not be able to enter those stores for the rest of his/her life?

Rayne OfSalt
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

The stored information was used to collate data from social media then sold to advertising companies.

Load More Replies...
Rayne OfSalt
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Yeah, so most of you aren't Australian and have absolutely no idea how evil the people who own and running Bunnings are. Their release of these videos is corp-washing, attempting to make themselves look like a poor little victim of evil leftist government overreach. Don't believe the lies, do NOT believe the corporation. Enough with the "but gubmints are teh bad!" garbage.

somnomania (she/her, queer)
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

i don't usually support frt but it seems like there are some real problems with crime in australia! if these things were happening even with the frt, i'd hate to think what would be happening otherwise. but others have made excellent points; there are other options that would be better, like hiring more security.

Roberta Surprenant
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It seems that a sign posted at entry informing customers that the technology was in use would give them a chance to shop elsewhere. Otherwise consider it informed consent.

A Jones
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I be fine if this sort of thing was consensual at the get-go, may have prevented this sort of retaliation and lack of public trust.

featherytoad
Community Member
2 days ago (edited) DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

I don't know what it matters about personal data being breached/gathering data at this point. Don't all websites that you buy from do that, grocery store saver cards or, that you have to have an account with, such as paying bills online. What's the difference between what they are doing and CCTVs outside of every building you walk buy? If I'm missing something, please explain. I'm in America and I've had numerous alerts from my credit card company that my social security number was breached, had to replace my Chase card twice and had someone use my debit card to buy $400 worth of c**p from Walmart. I just froze my reports and keep my CCs locked. It's just par for the course now. Every ones data was breached a long time ago, especially when Experian had that data breach.

zovjraar me
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

i don't have an issue with security cameras, but FRT is not needed.

Manana Man
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

There are many situations where it's reasonable to expect privacy, but expecting not to be observed when you're out in public seems over the top.

Steve
Community Member
1 day ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

So how come nobody worries about the government using FRT on cameras where the general population walks and gathers? How come it's a concern when a business uses it.

Apatheist Account2
Community Member
2 days ago

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

If you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear from security cameras. Sadly for the law abiding, that's not guaranteed, but it should be.

Libstak
Community Member
2 days ago DotsCreated by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

It's the data collection on individuals without their consent. That can be used and sold for targeted marketing and invasive government surveillance in theory. At some point, we just want to anonymously go about our lives. With AI as it is, it also raises the question of the data being abused by being sold out or otherwise retrieved by nefarious groups and suddenly your image is all over the net with altered backgrounds and edited circumstances...I don't trust any Australian company with my image or data, we are already harassed by overseas call centres that know a hell of a lot more about us than they ever should.

Load More Replies...
You May Like
Related on Bored Panda
Related on Bored Panda
Trending on Bored Panda
Also on Bored Panda