I don't want to be informed when my face are being scanned, in the same way that I don't want to be informed when a website is about to sell my data. What I want is for the law not to allow such things.
This dimension of privacy is still open for debate.
As a sibling comment notes, this is how general store customer interactions used to be done. The "facial recognition" system in question was the store owner themselves.
I don't see your point. It's an ethical discussion. Is the goal is to maximize your personal convenience or is the goal is to maximize ethics, while still allowing your extreme convenience?
> As a sibling comment notes, this is how general store customer interactions used to be done. The "facial recognition" system in question was the store owner themselves.
I disagree with the statement in general, but rather than dissecting it, I'll point out that the issue is "spying", not the particular action of recognizing your face.
Positioning "maximize your personal convenience" vs "maximize ethics" begs the question of whether the two are opposed. I don't think they are because I don't think it's unethical for a company to use facial recognition (as the OP seems to assume).
As the other child comment mentioned, there are many ways to identify yourself to a store that don't require facial recognition. The YMCA for example has a system that lets users track their exercise history; there's no reason Macy's couldn't do the same for your purchases. If indiscriminate ID'ing is the default position, then you have decided that _your convenience is more important than the freedom of every other person in the store._ It should be the responsibility of the person who wants this convenience to opt in, not the responsibility of the rest of us to opt out.
The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate. But if it's not, we fortunately have hundreds (thousands?) of cases of corporate consumer abuse and irresponsible data storage to point to.
It seems to be getting largely positive reviews from its users.
> The desire to not have PiD stored by anyone should be reason enough to close the debate.
Why? There is an open question of societal benefit versus personal benefit regarding how PID is tracked and used, to say nothing of the actual ownership of that PID (if you walk into a store's private property and their security cameras record an image of your face while you're standing in their private property, do you own that image? Why should you? You're in their property and it was recorded with a camera they own on to media they own).
Cheers - where everybody knows your name.