First paragraphs pretty clearly read to me like the issue isn’t “processing it,” it’s the indiscriminate filming of everybody who enters the store without consent that’s the problem.
The specific difference is "sensitive information". General filming with manual review isn't considered to be collecting privacy sensitive information. Automatic facial recognition is.
The blog post makes this point about how the law is applied:
> Is this a technology of convenience - is it being used only because it’s cheaper, or as an alternative to employing staff to do a particular role, and are there other less privacy-intrusive means that could be reasonably used?
https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/blog/is-there-a-place-for-facia...
Say I implement facial recognition anti-fraud via an army of super-recognizers sitting in an office, watching the camera feeds all day (collecting the sensitive information into their brains rather than into a computer system). It'd be more expensive and involve employing staff (both the "technology of convenience" criteria. From a consumer perspective the privacy impact is very similar, but somehow the privacy commissioner would interpret this differently?
Maybe that is the point the privacy commissioner is trying to make, that collecting this information through an automated computer system is fundamentally different than collecting this information through an analog/human system. But I'm not sure the line is really so clear...
At some point the numbers get big enough that you wouldn't be able to get the pictures of faces in front of the people who would recognize them fast enough.
But is a non-indiscriminate, privacy friendly solution possible? The problem is people walking in with a valid receipt for a purchased item, grabbing a matching item off the shelf, and wandering over to the returns counter and requesting their money back. The usual solution most shops use is locating the returns counter past the security controls (checkout counter). But more and more of these types of stores are putting their service counters in the middle of the store for some reason.
The root comment is precisely right. Deriving data from filmed content -- the illusory private biometric data that we are leaving everywhere, constantly -- is what the purported transgression was.
Me. Unless it's clearly stated outside. It's why I wear a covid mask when shopping.
At best it degrades overall recognition but doesn't fully prevent it
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 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?
The Australian Privacy Act falls well short of European standards, but it does encode some rights for people that businesses must abide by.
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.
It generally owns more weapons than your average deluded shop owner.