Comment by FridayoLeary 4 days ago
Sounds like the guy is fishing here. Theres no proof in the article that Home Depot is actually storing his information. I'm personally pretty suspicious about the cameras at self checkouts and at the entrance of supermarkets, but this lawsuit looks like a waste of time, or this is a really badly written article.
Not our first rodeo. Post 2010 we ask for evidence data collection is not happening, and not being sold for $$$.
You can't prove something is not happening, nor even provide evidence. So that would be a quite unreasonable standard if that truly is what you think we should enact.
Well, you can if you're suing a company or entity and there is a complete picture of the situation collected. This isn't a criminal case - I would not be surprised if this isn't about setting a precedent. The result clarifying boundaries for what can and what can't be done.
A forensic study… audit of the source code, firewall logs, and device storage would be enough information to determine if it is happening or not.
Absolute proof it could never happen? No, but we don’t need that.
Yes, he probably is fishing. But the lawsuit is how you fish. It is how you force a company to share information about what they do or do not store. If they don't store your data, it will be dropped. If they do store your data, it will proceed. Even if it gets dropped, it was not a waste of time because someone is making an effort to find out what is going on.
So you are 100% correct - the article is badly written because it doesn't give that context to how people use the legal system to determine whether or not there is a case to be had.