Comment by delichon

Comment by delichon 4 days ago

The green box around his face in the image is evidence that it detected a face, but not that it had collected or stored identifying biometrics. It would be legal for a POS device to detect any face, e.g. to help decide when to reset for the next customer. But as I understand it, this would usually be enough to trigger discovery, where he could learn the necessary technical details.

Even if this suit fails, the store is vulnerable to continuous repeats by other parties. Written consent from each customer is the only viable protection. So the BIPA law may mean that face detection, not just recognition, is not practical in Illinois.

advisedwang 3 days ago

How does one find out whether Home Depot is merely detecting faces or storing biometrics?

Answer: File a lawsuit and use discovery to find out.

Reply View 2 replies

horseradish7k 2 days ago

this means you're guilty until proven otherwise, does it not?

Reply View | 1 reply
- justsid 2 days ago
  
  I'm pretty sure just like free speech, innocent until proven guilty is for the government/court, not a random person on the street. If you want to assume someone is guilty of something you are allowed to do so and you can sue too. Otherwise the prosecution would have to go to jail every time the defense wins.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

andy_xor_andrew 3 days ago

I was wondering this as well. The green box could simply indicate it detected a face, using something like YOLO, or even a simpler technique like some point-and-shoot cameras use to decide where to focus (on faces, obviously).

Reply View 0 replies

[removed] 4 days ago

[deleted]

Reply View 0 replies

m463 4 days ago

It still "recognizes a face" and shows this. Legal terms do not have to be scientific or engineering terms.

Reply View 15 replies

mlyle 3 days ago

Detecting a face is not the same as recognizing a face in either engineering parlance or typical usage.
If I don't determine this is a face that I've seen before, I've not recognized the face (maybe I have recognized that there is a face there).
To recognize entails re-cognizing: knowing again what was previously known. Simply noticing that something is a face does not satisfy that; it is only detecting. Without linking it to prior knowledge, recognition hasn’t occurred.

Reply View | 12 replies
- conductr 3 days ago
  
  Is this coming from legal definitions?
  Because, one of the valid dictionary definitions of "recognition" is simply acknowledging something exists. No prior knowledge needed for that, other than the generic training the facial detection software has undergone.
  
  Reply View | 10 replies
  
  margalabargala 3 days ago
  
  The total options for dictionary terms for "recognition" does not mean that you can select any among them, decide that that's what "facial recognition" means, and expect anyone else to understand you.
  "Facial recognition" refers to seeing a face and knowing whose face it is. It's the difference between "that's a face" and "that's my friend Jeff".
  That some constituent word has some other definition is not relevant. What you're doing is equivalent to reading "my nose is running" and thinking "egads! This person's nose has sprouted legs and taken off down the track!"
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  mlyle 3 days ago
  
  Words have a definition and a connotation, and meaning is inferred from context cues. What a word means is based on its prevailing word in this context.
  No one reasonably uses "facial recognition" or "I recognized a face" to mean "I detected that there was, indeed, a face there."
  In this case, the statute doesn't even say "facial recognition". It discusses storing a "scan of face geometry" such that it identifies an individual, and clarifies that an ordinary photograph doesn't count.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  conductr 3 days ago
  
  Ok if the law defines the term, that answers my question. I wasn't sure what level of grey area connotation was being discussed.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  mannykannot 3 days ago
  
  This is not how dictionaries work. When multiple definitions are given, it does not follow - and in many cases, it is not even possible - that they are all applicable in any context.
  Ignoring context leads to things like "English as She is Spoke" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke
  Decent dictionaries give some guidance as to the contexts in which each each definition is applicable, but for thoroughness you probably cannot beat the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary.
  The relevant definition here is neither legal nor technical, but from common usage, where recognizing a face, if not qualified, is taken to mean recognizing an individual by their face, not recognizing that you are seeing a face.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
- m463 3 days ago
  
  but just think about other things.
  Like the google 'incognito' mode that wasn't private browsing, and google was found guilty.
  engineers might say "of course it's not private" but the court opinion differed.
  common sense to a normal person might not match engineer thinking.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
npteljes 3 days ago

The lawsuit alleges that they also collect the facial details, of which the green rectangle is no evidence. But maybe they'll look into it and find that this is indeed the case.

Reply View | 0 replies
MagicMoonlight 3 days ago

If it's not clearly defined then it would be subject to debate in court, and you could admit expert evidence of what facial recognition is to define it

Reply View | 0 replies