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.