Toronto Eaton Centre (Ongoing Renewal) | ?m | ?s | Cadillac Fairview | Zeidler

afransen said:
I have heard of this technology being used to gather demographic data (using image recognition to classify people by age, sex, etc.). I'm rather surprised that a solution provider would make a solution that violates privacy laws as compliance is a pretty high priority for large corporate customers (no one wants to be the CEO for another Target CC leak, etc.).
Click to expand...

A read of the decision indicates the following.

1603994928798.png


1603995004187.png


1603995031816.png


1603995078771.png


1603995121762.png


One may read the balance to one's contentment at this link:

PIPEDA Findings #2020-004: Joint investigation of the Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

www.priv.gc.ca www.priv.gc.ca

PS.......though not enabled.........apparently this tech could record audio.
 
As long as there is care not to track or identify individuals, I don't have any objection to using facial recognition to gather demo data or understand consumer behaviour (ie, tracking a 'session' of where a person went during a visit). If anyone objects to this, I assume they don't use the internet, which offers much more opportunity for fine grain identification of individuals, and their behaviours and thoughts.
 
afransen said:
As long as there is care not to track or identify individuals, I don't have any objection to using facial recognition to gather demo data or understand consumer behaviour (ie, tracking a 'session' of where a person went during a visit). If anyone objects to this, I assume they don't use the internet, which offers much more opportunity for fine grain identification of individuals, and their behaviours and thoughts.
Click to expand...
My internet doesn't read my face though.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
My internet doesn't read my face though.
Click to expand...
It knows exactly who you are, where you live, what you like (both publicly and privately), your age, gender, political orientation, sexual orientation, relationship status, etc. etc. etc. And it has your face (courtesy facebook etc.).
 
afransen said:
It knows exactly who you are, where you live, what you like (both publicly and privately), your age, gender, political orientation, sexual orientation, relationship status, etc. etc. etc. And it has your face (courtesy facebook etc.).
Click to expand...
And then thanks to Clearview AI, they sell it to the police!
 
afransen said:
It knows exactly who you are, where you live, what you like (both publicly and privately), your age, gender, political orientation, sexual orientation, relationship status, etc. etc. etc. And it has your face (courtesy facebook etc.).
Click to expand...

But it doesn't have to. There are browser extensions or firewall policies that can block these kinds of trackers. They're trivial to setup. If you are informed, you can make choices about your personal data that don't rely on the goodwill of others to safeguard it.

In Google's case, you get services for free because they get value out of your personal data. This does not so much apply for a mall where you are spending significant money.
 
There is no perfectly effective way to maintain your privacy online. You can definitely reduce how many fingerprints you're leaving. But, you buy stuff on Amazon, right? You signed up for this forum, right?

Most people use these services and have come to terms with the privacy trade-offs. There is no need to step in a mall, just like there is no need to sign up for a Google account. My point is that worrying about a mall guessing your age and sex based on your image and using this aggregate traffic demographic data to use as a pitch for potential tenants seems like a pretty minor invasion of privacy compared to how laid bare people are on the web.
 
afransen said:
It knows exactly who you are, where you live, what you like (both publicly and privately), your age, gender, political orientation, sexual orientation, relationship status, etc. etc. etc. And it has your face (courtesy facebook etc.).
Click to expand...
So what? That doesn't prove a thing...other than conflating 2 different subject matters that have really nothing to do with each other. CF where caught doing something illegal with face recognition technology. Versus the internet still can't read my face (no matter what can be found about me or anyone). So I am not seeing the point here. And I certainly hope this isn't some convoluted attempt to defend the indefensible here.
 
Last edited:
"Shoppers had no reason to expect their image was being collected by an inconspicuous camera, or that it would be used, with facial recognition technology, for analysis"

What century do they think we live in?
 
picard102 said:
"Shoppers had no reason to expect their image was being collected by an inconspicuous camera, or that it would be used, with facial recognition technology, for analysis"

What century do they think we live in?
Click to expand...

One with privacy laws that explicitly require opt-in consent for the use of this technology? That is what the ruling says.
 
afransen said:
There is no perfectly effective way to maintain your privacy online. You can definitely reduce how many fingerprints you're leaving. But, you buy stuff on Amazon, right? You signed up for this forum, right?

Most people use these services and have come to terms with the privacy trade-offs. There is no need to step in a mall, just like there is no need to sign up for a Google account. My point is that worrying about a mall guessing your age and sex based on your image and using this aggregate traffic demographic data to use as a pitch for potential tenants seems like a pretty minor invasion of privacy compared to how laid bare people are on the web.
Click to expand...

That would seem to be an argument for greater restrictions on the use of cookies and trackers; on data retention, and on the re-selling or use of data by third-parties.

I don't find it a persuasive argument for laxness in respect of other privacy violations.

The issue here, other than requiring explicit, opt-in consent, is that notwithstanding CF's claims to the contrary..

a) The data was capable of being used to recognize shoppers
b) The data could be linked to Wifi information to make that data individually identifiable
c) The data was retained on a third party server, for no clear reason, for months (or longer), meaning CF either lied, or didn't understand what was happening with the data.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top