Kmart Facial Recognition Privacy Lawsuit – Commissioner Finds
here’s a summary of the provided text, focusing on the key points regarding Kmart’s use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT):
* Kmart’s FRT Use Deemed Improper: A three-year examination by Commissioner Carly Kind found Kmart’s use of FRT was disproportionate and lacked proper consent from shoppers.
* Indiscriminate Data Collection: The FRT system collected sensitive information from every customer entering 28 Kmart stores across Australia (excluding NT & Tasmania).
* Purpose of FRT: Kmart used FRT to cross-reference customer facial data against a database of individuals known or suspected of refund fraud.
* Kmart’s Defence Rejected: Kmart argued an exemption in the Privacy Act allowed them to collect data without consent to combat unlawful activity. The Commissioner rejected this, stating Kmart could have used more proportionate security measures.
* Limited Fraud Prevention: The amount of fraud detected and prevented by FRT was small, representing a minimal fraction of Kmart’s $9.2 billion annual revenue.
* Disproportionate Impact: The Commissioner found the indiscriminate collection of biometric data was disproportionate to the benefits, citing risks of commercial surveillance, discrimination, and potential for unlawful arrest.
* Orders Issued to Kmart: Kmart is prohibited from repeating the practice and must publish a statement on its website detailing its FRT use and the regulator’s findings.
* FRT not Generally Banned: The article notes this is the second similar finding against an australian retailer (bunnings was the first),but FRT itself isn’t currently banned in Australian stores.