this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
52 points (96.4% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1643 readers
33 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use [email protected]
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in [email protected]
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to [email protected]
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"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.
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