The prior generation of surveillance based on programs where you had to sign up first, got some card or something, and you scanned it during each purchase. These programs were opt in, and I never did. This new generation is on by default and doesn't let you opt out. That's a very troubling development.

The prior attempt was the iBeacon fad of 2013-2014, with Bluetooth turned on by default on iOS. Then BLE-enabled loyalty apps, now some smart ML to "optimise" your shopping experience. It will continue to evolve unless we introduce heavy taxation and regulation on marketing.

> This new generation is on by default and doesn't let you opt out.

I imagine that it would be possible to cover the camera when you're using the cooler.

My plan is to avoid buying anything from these things in the first place (there's always another store), but if/when the day comes when that is impossible, my backup plan is to cover the camera.

I also really hate the idea of replacing the glass with a display. If that happens, I'll have to stand there with the door open while I decide.

I'm sure it will not pass GDPR in the EU, so we Europeans got that going for ourselves, which is nice.

If the article is correct then this is not using any personally identifiable information (the cameras will apparently report "40 year old man, very grumpy" instead of "onion2k"), so the GDPR legislation won't help.

If the stores tie the facial data to a credit card or store rewards card then the GDPR might stop them retaining or sharing the information.

...Where is this notion that a picture isn't personally identifiable information coming from?

I get it in the sense it's just a picture, but when you run credit cards in a store, and can temporally associate cards to faces via temporal proximity, you're just elevating the "not that personally identifiable" to "definitely so".

But they certainly are gathering personally identifiable information, namely your face. I don't know the details of the GDPR, but doesn't it cover data collection as well as use?

Yes, it covers all "processing", meaning "any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction".

Applying some ML algorithm to personal data certainly fits.

GDPR contains nothing that will prevent this.

It contains everything that will prevent this.

Although I believe you're likely right, this is snarky and doesn't actually present an argument. Are you expecting to educate anyone with this comment?

As an American who isn't too familiar with GDPR, I'd like to know: Why does GDPR prevent this? Can you, being charitable in your assumptions, guess why the above commenter believes GDPR does not prevent this? Why is that argument wrong?

Please show me what part of GDPR that will prevent this.

A picture of a person is personal data (Art. 4, (1)). Applying an algorithm to it in order to guess age/sex is processing it (Art. 4, (2)). Therefore, the GDPR applies and you need a lawful basis, per Article 6.

If you reply it doesn't apply because the stored information is anonymized, I quote UK's ICO:

"You should also note that when you do anonymise personal data, you are still processing the data at that point."

what does gdpr have to do with this? think cctv with added AI. all running locally.

Running locally has nothing to do with GDPR. GDPR would also be applicable if you hire persons to recognize faces and put down notes on paper.

It's all about storing or working with data about other people. No matter how it's done.

CCTV is for government consumption, no?

My opt-out will be an automatic center-punch.

I always wonder if the people that invent these technologies are bragging, like: "You know all the crazy dystopian technology that has ruined the world in futuristic sci-fi movies? I make that!"

Cheap, ubiquitous wireless Internet, dirt-cheap bit storage, and low-power miniaturized electronics (computers, cameras) have ruined us. I truly don't see a way to a future that isn't pretty damn dystopic, though it may be a relatively comfortable dystopia, at least for some and in some places.

They see them as not-dystopic and think the ideas portrayed are cool and that they're the good guys bringing the masses technology that we want.

I get that argument for Twitter. I don't get that argument for taking something that the masses already hate and making it even more invasive and annoying.

I don't get the impression. I get the impression that they're thinking that they can boost sales.

Can't wait to read how racist and sexist these cameras are.

Too bad this would be illegal in Europe though. I'd love to see what the algo tries to sell to me. Amazon already thinks I'm a complete weirdo.

EDIT: Amazon is probably right though

i’ve seen such systems all across europe. they’re as illegal as cctv, i.e. not at all.

CCTV is allowed if used exclusively for security purposes (Art. 6 (1) (f)). These devices are not equivalent.

Digital? Check! Processes? Check! Personal? It's your #*%$ing face!

I'm pretty sure the GDPR has some interesting things to say about digitally processing personal data without informing you.

Why would it be illegal in Europe?

Of course they will be racist and sexist... they'll probably have a log of race and sex of those they see. That information is probably useful to know your customers and learn what to sell; it seems useful.

We've had this in some pharmacies (of all places) here in Vienna since 2017. They claim it's all offline and used for ads only, but nobody really believes it. Bayer had also installed some in Germany, but stopped using them after backlash from privacy NGOs.

Incidentally, in the same year, a lot of facial recognition tech was installed in train stations and other places after the terror attacks in Europe...

Luckily all those stupid terrorists don't know that they can just stick a beard or mustaches. Or wear a baseball cap to cheat all these fancy facial recognition tech stuff.

> a lot of facial recognition tech was installed in train stations and other places after the terror attacks in Europe...

Do you have any more info on that?

Actually I am more interested in the tech. Screens instead of the glass doors sounds quite interesting. Does anyone know who manufactures them? Maybe some sort of AR would be interesting too, where you can actually see the product, but interact on the screen with it.

Besides that, cameras at the shelf are a bit shady, but shops have already surveillance cameras so not sure how this really affects the general perception ( maybe only because they are hidden? ).

Here you go: https://www.coolerscreens.com

(I too think this is awful)

> Screens instead of the glass doors sounds quite interesting.

I have to say, I hate this idea almost as much as the cameras.

And what exactly is the benefit for me as a customer? I wished the future was less flashy and ad-packed. So much mental overhead in ignoring this stuff

It does not benefit you, at all. It's for the benefit of the companies', nothing else. They're just going to use mental gymnastics in order to make customers believe, it's going to benefit them.

More relevant ads and targeted offers of course. Now whether you value that as a consumer and have a realistic way to avoid it is an entirely different question.

More relevant to whom? Shop, vendor?

We cant get relevant ads done properly on the internet and we'd have better ones based on age/gender?

> More relevant ads and targeted offers of course

That just begs the question.

"Offer will be more calibrated to your needs" and other bs like that.

> And what exactly is the benefit for me as a customer?

Exactly none, of course.

If I can't avoid being tracked and targeted in stores, then I might as well do all of my shopping on Amazon. At least they deliver.

They’ve been in stores. Years ago I was working on retail installations that had everything needed to do this, we even tested it internally before deciding it wasn’t worth trying to sell to our clients

This recalls that scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise is getting peppered with virtual ads left & right after walking into a mall.

The thought makes me shudder a little.

I just can't wait for a drone , triggered by camera that identified my race ,to follow me around and take pictures when I go shopping at Nordstrom or Saks.

Good times for all minorities are coming !! see china for reference.

Thanks. Then I won't shop online or in store..

The only refuge will be the stingy mom and pops who don’t have the money to do something like this. Of course someone will come up with a leasing service for them and do some revenue sharing, eventually...

Or maybe we'll see the rise of people who go into the business of shopping for you...

Let's hope many more join you. A suggestion like this does prompt thoughts about the sort of society in which we want to live. Imagine how this technique could develop if encouraged.

Of all popular sci-fi movies, Minority Report remains the most prescient. Or should I say precognitive?

It's high time for the lawful to start a fashion of routinely wearing face-obscuring garments. If the USian philosophy is that companies are free to do whatever they want with surveillance, then the rational response is to stop leaking that information in the first place.

What kind of accessories could you wear to confuse these cameras without standing out too much?

The "without standing out too much" part is the problem. You could use any of the face paint / jewel techniques that work on face detection algorithms in general [1], but they're all pretty obvious unless your personal style is already quite non-mainstream.

[1] https://cvdazzle.com/

Also the adversarial image sticker from this previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16704583

There's a whole class of makeup techniques designed to enhance attractiveness by creating the appearance of a different bone structure. Maybe that could be useful here? We need makeup experts who can develop "counter-contouring" techniques to skew your face's scanned appearance away from your identity.

I bet this won't be weird in the future. Kids are naturally rebellious and I could see a situation where it becomes fashionable to hide your face using these techniques.

Not just kids. I'm a past-middle-aged man, and it's not terribly hard to see me doing that sort of thing, if this stuff becomes difficult enough to avoid.

Tangentially related, but this guy had a poem-taking camera at EMFcamp last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-wrsHXaCME

Jokes on them: I'm 33 but have acted like a 50-something-year-old since I was 25.

All I can say is "good luck", because I fool humans all the time.

Also discussed a few months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19268290

Connect up that credit card reader to a camera at the checkout register and now those cameras guess your identity.

this is such an old problem: how to passively measure feedback from users in realtime in offline locations. i’ve seen all kinds of solutions so far, but nothing stands out. hopefully these new systems will eventually produce something more actionable.

> how to passively measure feedback from users in realtime in offline locations.

How about: just don't do that?

"Hello Mr. Yakamoto and welcome back to the GAP!" - Minority Report

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who found that just as chilling as the whole precrime thing...

You aren't alone.

The other missing piece to that reality exists too--directional speakers.

Is it different to have software and cameras doing this than the cashiers?

What cashiers are doing this? I haven't encountered them.

It will try to guess your current gender, not your gender assigned at birth. Same with age, because your age assigned at birth has likely changed too.

Everything. Everything that does this thinks I'm Female. I am not Female.

Facebook has me as “African American cultural affiliated” but when you look at me you would think that I am a white middle aged male. Maybe they know more about us than we do? :)

So? It probably means you look like a typical female.

They probably don't care for 100% accuracy. Most people's sex is trivial to identify. Age is much harder.

You assume that the tech has a high accuracy rate. Facial recognition tends to fail for African Americans, unusual bone structure (remember how neural nets thought that seemingly random noise was a banana?) or tricks of lighting. So no he probably doesn’t and even if that was the case, this is invasive and not okay.

It is invasive for the following reasons, the technology is pushing to you instead of letting you choose how to interact with it. You can’t opt out or not consent to the tech. It poses a significant barrier to usability because what if there’s an offer for men chained to faces that the system thinks are male or vice versa? Now he’ll have to prove his masculinity to an algorithm or ask someone to intercede? That’s additional friction on top.

Pushing not pulling seems deeply unethical and counter productive.

@areoform cctv

They can go nicely together as SV shows.