Calgary malls use facial recognition to track shoppers' age, gender without consentLaw & Order | 207824 hits | Jul 26 7:45 am | Posted by: DrCaleb Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
|
Fun fact: There is reduced right to privacy on private property, CF properties all have disclaimers that state you will be photographed. Its a condition of entry. By entering onto the property you are consenting to the conditions of entry.
Photography is one thing, but personal details may not be taken without consent. But running facial recognition and assigning age and gender, they cross the line.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topic ... ding-0-0-1
Fun fact: There is reduced right to privacy on private property, CF properties all have disclaimers that state you will be photographed. Its a condition of entry. By entering onto the property you are consenting to the conditions of entry.
Photography is one thing, but personal details may not be taken without consent. But running facial recognition and assigning age and gender, they cross the line.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topic ... ding-0-0-1
You consent by entering onto the property. By using the facility you are agreeing to be bound by the rules and regulations of the property, if you don't there are other malls you can visit. It's not public property.
Remember its private property with a public invitation. That invitation can be rescinded at anytime for any reason.
PIPDA and FOIP are generally for public institutions and would only apply if the centre was releasing the information to a 3rd party.
PIPDA and FOIP are generally for public institutions and would only apply if the centre was releasing the information to a 3rd party.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topic ... vs_080306/
Just running it through facial recognition, even if it's not recorded, is subject to PIPEDA.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topic ... formation/
Most businesses don't realize that if they collect any 3 of; your name, address, phone number or email address; that they must have a copy of their privacy policy available at the point of collection.
(I do this for a living I'm the focal for a lot of audits. )
PIPDA and FOIP are generally for public institutions and would only apply if the centre was releasing the information to a 3rd party.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topic ... vs_080306/
Just running it through facial recognition, even if it's not recorded, is subject to PIPEDA.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topic ... formation/
Most businesses don't realize that if they collect any 3 of; your name, address, phone number or email address; that they must have a copy of their privacy policy available at the point of collection.
(I do this for a living I'm the focal for a lot of audits. )
As do I, good sir. As do I.
These laws pertain to Retailers,I don't it applies to private property owners and their agents in the manner you think it may. PIPDA only sets out guidelines for FR software.
As do I, good sir. As do I.
These laws pertain to Retailers,I don't it applies to private property owners and their agents in the manner you think it may. PIPDA only sets out guidelines for FR software.
You might be right, I only know the law as it applies to my custodianship of the Alberta Tax database. I only know the other parts in passing, while studying the do's and don'ts of information handling.
I know certain parts of it directly apply to retailers, such as the collection of information. We'll see if the privacy Comissioner thinks these malls need a slap on the wrist.
Personally, I hope they do. I'm getting pretty tired of everyone trying to collect my data to use it to pester me.
So long as the data is not retained or correlated to track anyone's visits there should not be a problem.
HOWEVER, you can expect law enforcement to start routinely seizing these records whenever the hell they feel like it and that will end up ruining this for everyone involved.
If the information is being collected only for statistical purposes and no names are being attached to the faces then it might be a permissible activity even under stringent privacy laws like the GDPR.
So long as the data is not retained or correlated to track anyone's visits there should not be a problem.
HOWEVER, you can expect law enforcement to start routinely seizing these records whenever the hell they feel like it and that will end up ruining this for everyone involved.
Technically, Police would need an "Order to Produce" to obtain the information.
If the information is being collected only for statistical purposes and no names are being attached to the faces then it might be a permissible activity even under stringent privacy laws like the GDPR.
So long as the data is not retained or correlated to track anyone's visits there should not be a problem.
HOWEVER, you can expect law enforcement to start routinely seizing these records whenever the hell they feel like it and that will end up ruining this for everyone involved.
Technically, Police would need an "Order to Produce" to obtain the information.
Truthfully, police have an irritating tendency to bully people into giving the cops what they want and they're not averse to making shit up to justify their actions.
"You have to show me your ID, it's the law!" (No, it isn't)
"You have to stop filming me because it's the law!" (No, it isn't)
"You can't make a complaint about me unless you show me your ID and explain what your problem is, it's the law!" (No, it isn't)
&etc.
Lol... I hear ya. If they're dicks to me and they're not on a call, I've tossed them off my property and put a call into their watch commander.
An acquaintance of mine who passed away some years ago had cops come on his very large property without his permission for some training exercise and he went out to tell them to leave. They told him to fuck off or get arrested for interfering.
He went back to his house and came back in his Tiger tank and insisted that they leave or get squished.
They left.
Fun fact: There is reduced right to privacy on private property, CF properties all have disclaimers that state you will be photographed. Its a condition of entry. By entering onto the property you are consenting to the conditions of entry.
By continuing to be alive, you are consenting to give up all rights to privacy.
Here's where the libertarians could actually be of some use. Legislate all personal data as private property. Want to take my picture--you need a contract with me. Some people might sign up: "Sure profile me for $100/year or whatever." But otherwise stealing private information would be considered theft.