[darylteo]

The main judgement here seems to be: not everyone was there to get a refund, therefore, just entering the store is not an opt-in consent to biometric scans.

As a counter-example: Australian clubbing venues use facial recognition and id verification to identify banned individuals and detect fake documentation. This is required on condition of entry (therefore, opt-in), and this information is shared across all partner venues.

https://scantek.com/facial-biometric-matching-technology-sca...

[dghlsakjg]

Something that you are required to do by every single venue that offers a service in order to participate is not really what I would call opt in. Yes, you can opt out by never going to a nightclub, but that seems different.

You can’t really call something opt-in if opting out means that you are barred from participating in an entire class of activity unrelated to what you opted out of.

As a counter example, the TSA in the US is now starting to use facial scans for ID, but you can opt out by telling the agent. It does not mean that you cannot go flying, it means that they use a human to identify you without the use of computerized facial scans.

[SoftTalker]

I mean, the TSA already scans your passport/id, and knows every other detail about your trip. Is a facial scan really adding much more? Last time I entered the country they used facial recognition and I didn't even need to show my passport. So they obviously already had the data to recognize me from my passport photo. And this was over two years ago.

[nine_k]

To enter a movie theater, you have to buy a ticket. If you don't, you're barred from the entire class of activity of movie-going.

Where is the difference?

[vonneumannstan]

How is this the case? Presumably the scenario where they have live camera feeds and a security guard recognizes a banned person on them and removes them would be fine. Why does replacing the human with an algorithm legally make a difference? Did people consent to being facially recognized by a human security guard?

[rainbowzootsuit]

I think that it's analogous to when my genitals are fondled by a TSA agent because I opt out of body scans. The memory of the feeling of them caressing my shape lives on only in their brain instead of being permanently recorded in a database.

[LiquidSky]

That's not a counter-example to the judgment reasoning you highlight: everyone entering a night club is there to enter a night club, not everyone entering a K-mart is there to get a refund.

[socalgal2]

I'm not sure I see the distinction.

Everyone trying to enter K-mart is trying to enter K-mart just like the night club. Everyone going into the night club is not there to drink/meet someone/dance/use the restroom/make a drug deal Just like not everyone going into K-Mart is there to shop/browse/by a snack/get a refund/steal something

[silexia]

Crazy. Seems like a good application, but there is lots of potential for abuse.

[mmmlinux]

casinos have been doing this for years, its nothing new.

[fsckboy]

nightclubs want lots of customers especially attractive women, and don't want lots of problems. What's the potential for abuse? Detecting your attractiveness or ethnicity in order to turn you away would be abuses, but is that what you are thinking of or alleging? because if it's just facial recognition, they don't have an incentive to misidentify people