[abalone]

The ethics are simple: If you don't get opt-in consent, many subjects are going to feel violated. Even if you assure them you anonymize the data.

It's not enough to put a warning next to the camera because you've already captured them at that point and it's too late. If anywhere it would need to be at the entrance to the store.

But guess what? Customers HATE this stuff. The backlash and lost business is not worth it. See: http://abc7news.com/business/philz-to-stop-tracking-customer...

[bigbugbag]

If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside, it's good because now I can avoid getting inside the store and silently hate and boycott the brand.

If a store has a warning label on the device engaging in this, it's bad because it's too late for not entering the store. I'm gonna complain right now at the store manager, maybe call the cops or sue. I'll be vocal about actively hating the store, the brand, the manager, the employees.

If I went to a store engaging in this without telling and I later learn about it, then I'm calling Keyser Söze and it's pitchforks and beheading time.

I suppose it will take a couple more generations of brainwashing to have the population ready to accept this kind of highly invasive technology. IIRC about 10 years the big brother awards was awarded to a french industry group for their blue book describing how to condition a population to accept surveillance and control technology over a few generations.

[deadbunny]

> maybe call the cops or sue

What exactly are you going to call the cops for let alone sue for?

While I don't agree with this kind of technology you seem to be overly emotional about it which really doesn't help the issue.

[bjelkeman-again]

In some countries, like Sweden [1], this type of deployments of cameras are strictly regulated. A quick reading of the rules in Sweden tells me that you are unlikely to get permission for this easily.

[1] http://www.datainspektionen.se/lagar-och-regler/kameraoverva...

[deadbunny]

Sure, but I would bet money that GP isn't in a country that has those kinds of regulations. I'm addressing their emotional overreaction to something that require rational action (such as the law you mention).

[ffriend]

Thanks for the detailed comment. Couple clarifying questions if you don't mind:

- do you know that loyalty cards are often used in stores to collect customer data (a kind of offline cookie)? do you consider it a bad/dangerous/unethical or does it sound ok for you?

- if instead of a camera there was a person looking at customers and recording his observation, would you feel bad about it?

[discreteevent]

I'm not the parent commenter but:

- do you know that loyalty cards are often used in stores to collect customer data (a kind of offline cookie)? do you consider it a bad/dangerous/unethical or does it sound ok for you?

Yes I do know that loyalty cards are used to collect data. I think most people do. I don't take loyalty cards for this reason and I'm glad that they are opt in although there is some financial pressure to take them.

- if instead of a camera there was a person looking at customers and recording his observation, would you feel bad about it?

I would feel bad about it and I think the person should ask my permission first.

[ffriend]

> I would feel bad about it and I think the person should ask my permission first.

But if that person just memorizes customer reactions to understand how people on average react to particular products or actions, that's ok, right? Because this is what sellers and business owners do to improve their product. So is it about human-to-human interaction or some more subtle detail? I'm biased here, so sorry if I miss something obvious in this situation.

[abalone]

It's not subtle. If there was an employee standing next to you or following you around the store with a clipboard taking notes on you and your facial expressions, only then would you have something approaching an apples to apples comparison. Stop pretending that's normally "what sellers and owners do" and you're just automating it. Customers Do Not Want.

[abalone]

Loyalty cards are opt in. Security surveillance can be unsettling but customers understand its purpose and limited scope. What you're proposing is more invasive, and most people would not appreciate it if they knew about it.

Look, give up trying to justify it. Customers don't want it. You should find another application for this technology.

[ffriend]

Well, I definitely do have other applications for it. For example, I know that similar software has been used in labs to estimate people's reaction to videos and game features, in mobile applications to improve interaction with a user, etc.

My interest to offline applications comes from personal experience: recently we demonstrated our product (not emotion recognition, but also capturing user's face) on an exposition. People came to our stand, used the product (so they clearly opted-in), asked questions, etc. After 2 days, we asked a girl at the stand "What do people think about the product"? "Well, in general, they are interested" she answered. Not much info, right? Definitely less informative than "65% expressed mild interest, 20% had no reaction and 5% found it disgusting, especially this feature".

So I don't try to justify this use case - my life doesn't depend on it - but I find it stupid not to try to understand your clients better when it doesn't introduce a moral conflict.

[consz]

Loyalty cards are opt-in, and it's common knowledge that its explicit purpose is to track information about yourself -- so I think a lot more people find them (or at least their existence) acceptable.

[mikewhy]

> If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside.

Don't many shops have a generic "you are under video surveillance"? Wouldn't that also cover something like this?

[justaman]

This is true, the vast vast majority of stores have surveillance of some kind. Advertising's impact on the human psyche cant be underestimated. In the last ten years alone this has become increasingly apparent. Whether it be photoshopping images that manipulate our conception of beauty or dating apps that make us feel lonely enough to install.

I don't mind being recorded at a checkout.

Recording me to decipher my thoughts instead of my actions crosses a line.

[Shish2k]

> If a store has a warning at the door that this happens inside, it's good because now I can avoid getting inside the store and silently hate and boycott the brand.

Given how widespread this kind of monitoring is, this approach is basically "I will punish the honest stores and reward a sneaky store by spending my money there instead"