2w ago

Kmart broke privacy laws by using facial recognition technology, commissioner finds

www.abc.net.au

Use of facial recognition technology in Kmart stores broke privacy act

Privacy @programming.dev

cm0002 @lemmy.world

2w ago

Kmart Australia Illegally Used Mass-Facial Recognition in Stores

www.abc.net.au /news/2025-09-18/kmart-facial-recognition-technology-privacy-commissioner/105785802

Privacy @lemmy.ml

freedickpics @lemmy.ml

2w ago

Kmart Australia Illegally Used Mass-Facial Recognition in Stores

www.abc.net.au /news/2025-09-18/kmart-facial-recognition-technology-privacy-commissioner/105785802

10 comments

Crazy how when a huge company breaks a law and wrongs thousands of people, the "punishment" is being asked not to do it again. Can I get that punishment next time I commit a crime? Rob a bank and...oh well, just don't do it a second time buddy!
Now wait. Let me really be fair here. There is an actual difference. Robbing a bank is known to be illegal, whereas the way in which Kmart broke the law was arguably not known to be illegal. I'm not being facetious here, this is an actual important difference.
But...let's say then that I did something like that. I break some law unknowingly, or by mistake. Will I then merely be asked not to do it again? I doubt it...and so the point stands.
- I spent a few years as a trainer and one of the induction training sessions I took every new starter through was the Australian Privacy Principals. Every single new starter regardless of their role in the business went through these.
  I struggle to believe that anyone a management level in any medium-to-large organisation dealing with customers is not fully aware of these principals.
  The data collected about you needs to be necessary for the business to provide services to you. You have the right to not provide any information if it isn't required to provide their primary service. You have a right at any time to all the information a business has on you. These have all been breached. Potentially other principals.
- The double standard with the whole “it’s just business” shit is so appalling
It would be difficult to actually find something worth stealing in Kmart.. if someone was going to go to the risk of shoplifting, they would probably go somewhere that had decent quality. It was also their stupid decision to put the checkouts at the back of the store..
- I have never understood what the logic of that was. Put the checkouts in the middle of the store so you might see something you like on the way out and go back through the checkout again?
  It'd need to be some amazing deal for me to do that. And if it's near the exit, that in theory means it's near the entrance and I have probably already seen this deal.
- It is even more ridiculous than that. From the article it states “in an attempt to tackle refund fraud” which must represent a tiny amount of theft versus broader shoplifting.
  
  Refund fraud comes from the theft of an item and then trying to return it without a receipt.
  I only know this as they recently changed their policy where one could return anko items for credit/refund without one.. presumable because they were no longer able to have their sneaky cameras
- Lego.
  Can you remember the drug bust in Cranbourne recently where they found thousands of dollars of Lego?
  Drug dealers are trading their product for Lego; they are then selling it on Bricklink.
  The Druggos walk into Big W or Target or Kmart, grab a trolley, fill it up with Lego and just walk out, ignoring Staff and Security.
  This is who the facial recognition is supposed to target. They can prosecute an individual who is a multiple offender, but it isn’t worth the risk for a security guard to forcibly restrain an unpredictable single offender.
I didn't realize KMart still existed
- It's a whole different company in Australia.

10 comments