this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
259 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
5759 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is one of those things where I don't really agree with the law on.
Shoplifters come back again and again and many try to screw with checkout people with coupon scams or simply know where in the store to go to hide the things they want to steal.
Verkada (a company that supplies cameras and the software to use them) has this kind of functionality built-in. All it does is let you setup alerts for people who are persons of interest. It's not perfect but anyone paying attention can tell that the person on camera being alerted is the same as the POI or not. It doesn't eliminate the human interactions needed to actually prevent shoplifting, but it does let you know who to focus on when they come in.
Normal store employees don't get access to things like camera systems. Security / loss prevention employees are typically the ones with access and who would see a notification and then watch for someone to put things in a purse or pocket and try to walk out of the store.
So all they're saying is "do not scrutinize this known thief unless you yourself remember them" which is pretty absurd. If someone doesn't steal there isn't a problem, and if there is the footage will back up the innocence (or guilt!) I don't even know how this became a case.
Seems like the y're taking issue not with the technology, but Rite-Aid's implementation of it, particularly that they didn't do any of the required dilligence to prove that the tech wouldn't be harmful, or violate privacy, or would even be accurate.