Is this from the 90s? Who doesn't expect to be recorded when entering a retail chain? How the hell does the government have the right to decide what this private company can do on their private land? If you enter onto someone else's property you should play by their rules.
In Australia we expect companies to follow the rule of law, which encodes the expectations of society.
The Australian Privacy Act falls well short of European standards, but it does encode some rights for people that businesses must abide by.
And filming people who walk into a private store is not a violation of any Australian law.
In the US we expect the government to respect private property
Unfortunately often at the expense of virtually every consideration.
hyperbolic
Dismissive
There are obviously things you can't do on your private property though.
>Who doesn't expect to be recorded when entering a retail chain?
Me. Unless it's clearly stated outside. It's why I wear a covid mask when shopping.
Wearing a mask alone isn't sufficient anymore.
At best it degrades overall recognition but doesn't fully prevent it
People here might be interested in Zennioptical's ID Guard technology, if they wear glasses. Evidently it's not perfect, but it does at least partially work: https://youtu.be/HOBdJ6nU03o?si=E_a6rMPAz5AOwytm
Business opportunity: sell covid masks with patterns designed to thwart facial recognition on them.
Why are they covid masks anyway? Medical personnel wears them during surgery, and there were those photos of ... some asian people i think ... wearing them outdoors to protect themselves from air pollution in their city too.
Because this person never knew they existed until covid and now wearing it has become a core part of their identity.
That's why I wear Groucho glasses.
So to be clear, you wear a mask even though you don't expect to be recorded?
> How the hell does the government have the right to decide what this private company can do on their private land?
Unless you think a grocery store should be allowed to grab you and sell your organs then you agree that this private organisation should be subject to some limitations about what it can do on its own land. The question is then where the line should be between its interests and the interests of those who go on the land.
You can be absolutist about this, that’s certainly a position, but it’s extremely far from mainstream.
Grabbing and selling your organs is illegal. This isn't difficult to understand
Exactly. There is a limit to what a private company can do on private land, set by "the government" (here it'd be parliament). You don't seem to be an absolutist about this, so we both agree that the government can and should tell private businesses what they can do on private land. Then the issue is only where the line should be not whether there should be a line at all.
I agree, it's simple to understand. Running biometric capture & analysis on every customer is also illegal in Australia.
Try to stick to the topic
Ease off the gas man
> How the hell does the government have the right to decide what this private company can do on their private land?
Because the world is bigger than just the wishes of private businesses. I don't think there is anywhere on this planet where you as a private business can do literally whatever you want, there are always regulations about what you can and cannot do. The first thing is usually "zoning" as one example, so regardless if you own the land, if it isn't zoned for industrial/commercial usage, then you cannot use it for industrial/commercial usage.
What libertarian utopia do you live in that would allow land owners to do whatever they want?
We are talking about doing a lawful act, not whatever you want. It isn't illegal to record.
The article is literally about that specific thing being illegal, which is exactly what parent is complaining about?
The court didn't find that it was unlawful to record.
> How the hell does the government have the right to decide
It generally owns more weapons than your average deluded shop owner.