The main judgement here seems to be: not everyone was there to get a refund, therefore, just entering the store is not an opt-in consent to biometric scans.

As a counter-example: Australian clubbing venues use facial recognition and id verification to identify banned individuals and detect fake documentation. This is required on condition of entry (therefore, opt-in), and this information is shared across all partner venues.

https://scantek.com/facial-biometric-matching-technology-sca...

▲

dghlsakjg 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Something that you are required to do by every single venue that offers a service in order to participate is not really what I would call opt in. Yes, you can opt out by never going to a nightclub, but that seems different.

You can’t really call something opt-in if opting out means that you are barred from participating in an entire class of activity unrelated to what you opted out of.

As a counter example, the TSA in the US is now starting to use facial scans for ID, but you can opt out by telling the agent. It does not mean that you cannot go flying, it means that they use a human to identify you without the use of computerized facial scans.

▲

SoftTalker 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I mean, the TSA already scans your passport/id, and knows every other detail about your trip. Is a facial scan really adding much more? Last time I entered the country they used facial recognition and I didn't even need to show my passport. So they obviously already had the data to recognize me from my passport photo. And this was over two years ago.

▲

nine_k 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To enter a movie theater, you have to buy a ticket. If you don't, you're barred from the entire class of activity of movie-going.

Where is the difference?

▲

dghlsakjg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you really not see the difference between having to pay for a service and having to upload biometric data in a centralized database under someone else’s control?

For one, I don’t have to buy a ticket. Many theaters participate in programs where you can get a ticket as a reward for other activities (credit card points, eg). The ticket sale is determined by the theater, and is not part of a government supported scheme to prevent some people from ever seeing a movie in any theater, ever.

Finally, the sale of a ticket is necessary for the operation of many movie theaters. It is intrinsic to the business model. The nightclub could operate the service, and even work with ban lists without the centralized biometric database.

▲

spiderice 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> activity unrelated to what you opted out of

Going to see a movie is obviously not unrelated to buying a movie ticket.

▲

edlebert 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The difference is that buying a ticket isn't marketed as "opt-in".

▲

xandrius 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This comment cannot be done in faith. Buying a ticket versus buying a ticket AND being profiled by all other venues are clearly two different things.

	▲	nine_k 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I did not realize that the biometrics are shared with all clubs (and maybe government?), and are not limited to one club franchise.

▲

vonneumannstan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is this the case? Presumably the scenario where they have live camera feeds and a security guard recognizes a banned person on them and removes them would be fine. Why does replacing the human with an algorithm legally make a difference? Did people consent to being facially recognized by a human security guard?

▲

rainbowzootsuit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I think that it's analogous to when my genitals are fondled by a TSA agent because I opt out of body scans. The memory of the feeling of them caressing my shape lives on only in their brain instead of being permanently recorded in a database.

	▲	socalgal2 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		that distinction won't last more than a few more years

▲

LiquidSky 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's not a counter-example to the judgment reasoning you highlight: everyone entering a night club is there to enter a night club, not everyone entering a K-mart is there to get a refund.

	▲	socalgal2 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure I see the distinction. Everyone trying to enter K-mart is trying to enter K-mart just like the night club. Everyone going into the night club is not there to drink/meet someone/dance/use the restroom/make a drug deal Just like not everyone going into K-Mart is there to shop/browse/by a snack/get a refund/steal something

▲

silexia 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Crazy. Seems like a good application, but there is lots of potential for abuse.

▲

mmmlinux 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

casinos have been doing this for years, its nothing new.

▲

fsckboy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

nightclubs want lots of customers especially attractive women, and don't want lots of problems. What's the potential for abuse? Detecting your attractiveness or ethnicity in order to turn you away would be abuses, but is that what you are thinking of or alleging? because if it's just facial recognition, they don't have an incentive to misidentify people

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	shermantanktop 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This is indiscriminate data collection. Some of the risk comes from the correlation with other sources of data by LEO with overly broad access to fine grained data. Big Brother is not watching you. Instead, thousands of Little Brothers are patiently watching their little corner of the world, recording license plates, logging phone locations, tracking credit card usage. Big Brother doesn’t need to see you, he just asks them to tell him what he wants to know.
	▲	nemomarx 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		if anything is stored, "we know you were at this night club at this time" is pretty sensitive information? depending on the kind of club.