Re:Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software afte...
by jerf on Wednesday December 20, 2023 @03:54PM
(#38713512)
I was doing you the favor of ignoring the irrelevant hypothetical. I find "but what if something else entirely that you didn't say?" questions rather annoying. And I believe I was rather clear that the problems I am talking about extend beyond facial recognition, yes.
Re:Rite Aid banned from using face recognition software afte...
by gruez on Wednesday December 20, 2023 @04:10PM
(#38713696)
The hypothetical is very relevant because your stance implies that we should ban human facial recognition as well. That might count as "something else entirely that you didn't say", but asking about the implications of something that you propose is fair game. You can't write off follow up questions with "well I didn't say anything about that, and I find them questions rather annoying, so I'm not going to address them at all".
You didn't answer the second part of my comment:
"How would that be enforced? If a store employee thinks they recognize someone from a few minutes ago, are they supposed to ignore that fact, and pretend that they're different people, on the off chance that the guy might be someone else[1]?"
>and probably drop the requirement that de facto minimum wagers be asked to confront nominal criminals
Are you saying this on the basis that they're not qualified to make an identification, or that confrontation would put them at risk of violence? If it's the latter it really doesn't have anything to do with facial recognition. It would still apply even if replaced facial recognition with a 100% accurate oracle.