Strongly disagree. While I can accept that it's supposedly valuable for you as a consumer to be "identified and attached" to a company—even though it'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 "dimension of privacy."

As the other child comment mentioned, there are many ways to identify yourself to a store that don't require facial recognition. The YMCA for example has a system that lets users track their exercise history; there's no reason Macy's couldn't do the same for your purchases. If indiscriminate ID'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.

The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate. But if it's not, we fortunately have hundreds (thousands?) of cases of corporate consumer abuse and irresponsible data storage to point to.

Amazon has an entire grocery store experiment that utilizes this is a core element of the experience.

It seems to be getting largely positive reviews from its users.

> The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate.

Why? There is an open question of societal benefit versus personal benefit regarding how PID is tracked and used, to say nothing of the actual ownership of that PID (if you walk into a store's private property and their security cameras record an image of your face while you're standing in their private property, do you own that image? Why should you? You're in their property and it was recorded with a camera they own on to media they own).

Get their member card if you want. Your consent shouldn't affect other people.

How would my consent to have my image recorded and stored affect other people?

Back in the day, growing up, the storekeepers may not have known my name, but they certainly knew my parents. I didn't realize until much later that a number of them were my parents second and third cousins.

Cheers - where everybody knows your name.

Fair point, thought what you described can be achieved in many means beside facial recognition.

True, but facial recognition is incredibly convenient. It requires the customer to do no additional work.

As a sibling comment notes, this is how general store customer interactions used to be done. The "facial recognition" system in question was the store owner themselves.

> True, but facial recognition is incredibly convenient. It requires the customer to do no additional work.

I don't see your point. It's an ethical discussion. Is the goal is to maximize your personal convenience or is the goal is to maximize ethics, while still allowing your extreme convenience?

> As a sibling comment notes, this is how general store customer interactions used to be done. The "facial recognition" system in question was the store owner themselves.

I disagree with the statement in general, but rather than dissecting it, I'll point out that the issue is "spying", not the particular action of recognizing your face.

> It's an ethical discussion

Positioning "maximize your personal convenience" vs "maximize ethics" begs the question of whether the two are opposed. I don't think they are because I don't think it's unethical for a company to use facial recognition (as the OP seems to assume).