"When we make a mistake we own up to it and make it right" I'm sorry doesn't cut in that situation. A company that large doing that should be doing more than saying sorry to make things right.
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
51 points (96.4% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1648 readers
9 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'd love to see one of these companies end up paying out a hefty discrimination case over this, it's likely the only way they will learn for good.
Yeah 100%. They shouldn't be able to brush this off.
It's such mealy mouthed nonsense.
They can't "put it right" vis a vis that woman, and they have no intention of actually putting it right for others by ending the weird face misrecognition trial.
I think the best case scenario is the Privacy Commisioner watching this trial deciding they aren't allowed to do it long term because of this (and what I'm sure are many other cases of the same this haplening).
Sorty if this is a dumb question but does the Privacy Commissioner have power to stop it?
That's a really good question. I believe the Privacy Act was updated in 2020 to have more teeth but I haven't had to work in that space in a long time so I'm not sure what that changes actually were.
The Privacy Act basically says you can't collect personal info on people without them knowing, and even if they know, without a reason (to sell it to third parties is still a reason).
IANAL so I'm not sure on the ramifications here, but I suspect lawyers aren't too sure either and are waiting for some precident. But collecting people's faces would be personal information. If they don't store it then maybe no harm no foul? But for the people they store (suspected shoplifters - NOT convicted shoplifters), you would have to inform them in some way and get their consent (implied consent via signage?).
The privacy commissioner's office is probably watching closely to see how they implement this within the law to set a standard, but I suspect they don't have a lot of power to stop it if New World follow the Privacy Act (much like Facebook and Google exploit the hell out of people's personal info, but inform them via Ts & Cs).
Given that she showed them ID to prove they had made a mistake and they still kicked her out of the store, that statement is a lie
As she gave them three forms of ID, she said she saw an image on a phone they had been looking at that appeared to be of a Māori woman wearing a cap.
Ffs.
"We apologise to the customer and will be contacting her directly to apologise for what's happened."
What, so they've got her address as well?? Everything about this is awful (except for her understandable outage, pushing back at them!)
That apology better have been in the form of a big stack of gift cards
If you use any of the rewards cards at supermarkets they've got lots more than just your address.
Sue sue sue! They keep phrasing this like the problem is that maybe the systems can be inaccurate as the primary problem. But if they were perfectly accurate their existence and deployment in this context is still a travesty. Supermarkets aren't police, they have no right to do this, if I go shopping I'm not volunteering to participate in a lineup. These types of systems are some of the more egregious examples of a larger trend of accepting private companies taking on powers that are only supposed to be tolerated when wielded by the state, I don't want to live life like an inmate, offering you my custom should not be rewarded in this way.
I mean, they do have the right to keep people out of their store, they're under no obligation to provide goods or services to anyone. The issue is how they went about it.
Looking at community law, it looks like they only have the right to ask you to leave AFTER they have trespassed you, before that you have the legal right to be in the store.
Since this lady in fact had not been trespassed previously and they (probably) didn't serve her a notice during the incident, she would seem to be well within her rights to say prove that it is me, and not leave/call the police to sort it out.
Whilst supermarkets are private property, they are not the same type of private property as your house. They need grounds to refuse entry/ask you too leave, there are all kinds of discrimination implications if you remove the need to have grounds to refuse service.
I didn't realise that actually, although it makes sense given how important a supermarket is.
In most towns in New Zealand there is only one supermarket. I don't see how they would have the right to trespass you. Where are you going to get your food from?
That's also my issue with it, in as much as how they went about it was installing a facial recognition system. Damn things ought to be illegal.
I don't really see the difference between that and having someone watch the cameras, to be honest.
Just wanting to add, that apart from being very angered by the supermarket's in general & their use of this BS technology; I think I kinda want to try chops with fried rice.
Yeah same, that's some kiwi ingenuity shit right there.