[kulshan]

Title is twisting two cases...

It's confusing because in the beginning of the article it brings up another case where there was a database that was deleted.

In this new case the company is claiming it's only using facial recognition to "activate the purchase interface". There is no data stored.

Seems a way over engineered way to activate the display and is pretty much in place for future use. But in this case there's been no secret database revealed.

[cjbprime]

> Seems a way over engineered way to activate the display and is pretty much in place for future use.

This is a very generous reading. A more parsimonious one is that they are actively doing facial recognition to get age and gender, and are arguing this is legal because they don't store the faces after acting on them, as the quoted marketing material suggests.

(I would expect laws banning unconsented facial recognition to ban it regardless of whether the faces end up in a database afterwards.)

[kulshan]

I was doing my best to not apply too much judgement with so little facts.

[aniftythrifrty]

It's not doing facial recognition in that it is trying to identify people, it is doing meta-facial recognition, not looking for people's identities just their meta, non-personal info, like male or female and supposed age.

[nothercastle]

Why would you expect laws to be sensible?