Ask HN: Should I join this gym, even though they use facial scanning for entry? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Should I join this gym, even though they use facial scanning for entry?

3 pointsunsupp0rted5 comments

I'm about to join a 24-hour gym that is literally 30 meters from my home. It's got everything I need, except that entry is governed by a facial scanner, which presumably checks their DB for an active membership.

How bad is this?

I should add that on the list of countries where you'd generally be okay with randoms or governments having your face scan, this one is, if not directly the bottom one, very close to it.

But then again... what harm is there? So somebody has my facial scan for Face ID... what of it?

Should my convenience trump security in this case?

View on HN

If you decide no, as I would, it's really important that you tell them why. Otherwise your considered ethical choice is not even a "silent protest", it's just a non-event.

... and you can do so in a non-confrontational way, "Hey, I'd like to join but I don't like the facial scanning, is there any alternative? Oh, OK, thanks".

This! Absolutely.

Some tips:

"I'm not comfortable/happy/okay with...."

"Let's explore some alternatives..."

"I think you'll understand why...."

Don't talk to the receptionist. Or even the site "manager". Make sure you're talking to the business owner. If you find it's a big business franchise, call them or write.

When they offer you "assurances", very politely question those

(they almost certainly have no basis... this is the nub of the Fujitsu/Horizon scandal, that somewhere somebody said "just fob them off").

Appeal to their wisdom;

"So, obviously you understand these things, please tell me does it use a hashing algorithm and store...."

"So you understand this system, I'm wondering what proofs, other than verbal assurances, can you show me?"

"I guess you have a degree in cybersecurity, so can you explain..."

Remember you're not trying to look clever, or play mind games, or troll them. You're trying to get them to recognise that the technology imposes a harm upon you (and others) that they may not have considered.

Having established that, that's all there is to it. Because if they won't be accommodating they're saying; "Sure, we expect you to endure that harm as a hidden cost of joining".

And now you have your answer.

I don't know what you can really do about it in the large.

If somebody has a cheap bullet camera that they bought from Amcrest for $50 they can watch your comings and goings and if they put a tag on a picture of you they can use facial recognition to find other times you walked by the camera. That's the problem w/ facial recognition, it can be applied to people without their consent.

Giving consent for one useful use doesn't change that reality in one direction or another.

Facial recognition is already happening on streets. So?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com