I’m not sure how they would collect fingerprints (?).
As far as facial recognition goes, I’m not sure this can be stopped, or, should we expect that it be stopped?
The moment you step in public you’re probably being recorded. Expecting a camera to not be hooked into some face scanning software isn’t enforceable. It could be used to identify trespassed persons. Sales teams may want to know what items you looked at, send you recommendations. E.g. you looked at only 70” or higher TV’s the last time you were in the store, now you’re back, a system could prompt an employee to inform you there’s a sale on an 82” TV.
You are in their place of business. They already record you, they don’t need your permission. Your face is not private. Is a system recognizing you any different than a person doing so?
Unless they’re doing something more sinister I don’t see a legal basis for a lawsuit. As said, the fingerprint claim is odd.
“ . Your face is not private. Is a system recognizing you any different than a person doing so?
Unless they’re doing something more sinister”
It would be outrageously sinister
“BIPA prohibits a private entity from collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving or obtaining an individual’s biometric information, unless it provides certain notice and obtains written consent.”
Of course they’re not allowed to collect biometric data without consent.
Not enough information. Are they storing this info or just comparing it against a federal database or something? I doubt Target itself would take on the expenditure of maintaining such a massive database.
It’s interesting that the article specifically mentions fingerprints. The only thing that makes sense is that since Target has credit cards, they probably offer a fingerprint option to login. If that’s the case, it’s odd that BIPA info isn’t included in the terms of service. Once the legislation passed in 2008, you’d think that all the legal jargon was revised at that time.