David, a final third question: Getting back to posting still images from video surveillance footage, could those be posted not to name and shame but be intended to elicit information about the person (and maybe list the contact number of the local precinct or maybe Crime Stoppers rather than the outlets own loss prevention number)? (Bonus question: Can a bounty or discount be given for conviction?)
David, if the person in question had been photographed, reported to police and charged (and perhaps been convicted in at least one case) would that cross the line into reasonability? Would the opinion of their legal advisors give greater reasonability to such uses of the gathered information? Can companies share this information internally with their other public/retail outlets? with competitor or neighboring retail outlets?
Interesting. I thought that the implied concent meant that the could do that. But apparently, unless there is explicit notice (hence, implied concent)of public disclosure, that cannot be done. If they state they may use the data from CCTV cameras to prevent loss of products, would they be able to then use this data to feed AI tools that recognize frequent offenders? I feel that clear and explicit concent would be required in such a scenario.
I would disagree with that interpretation. Generally the more sensitive the data and the more invasive the activity the more robust consent is required. So just posting a notice and relying on implied consent wouldn't meet the meaningful consent threshold to post photos publicly or feed into an AI database.
David, a slightly different tack: The company could also ban/invoke trespass on the person as well as or instead of posting their name or image, now does the trespass notification need to be reasonable in any sense or can it just be the result of random whimsy as it were by the owner or authorized agent?
Id make it law a business must post a photo and name of anyone found guilty of a criminal offense against business.
David, a final third question: Getting back to posting still images from video surveillance footage, could those be posted not to name and shame but be intended to elicit information about the person (and maybe list the contact number of the local precinct or maybe Crime Stoppers rather than the outlets own loss prevention number)? (Bonus question: Can a bounty or discount be given for conviction?)
David, if the person in question had been photographed, reported to police and charged (and perhaps been convicted in at least one case) would that cross the line into reasonability?
Would the opinion of their legal advisors give greater reasonability to such uses of the gathered information?
Can companies share this information internally with their other public/retail outlets? with competitor or neighboring retail outlets?
Interesting. I thought that the implied concent meant that the could do that. But apparently, unless there is explicit notice (hence, implied concent)of public disclosure, that cannot be done. If they state they may use the data from CCTV cameras to prevent loss of products, would they be able to then use this data to feed AI tools that recognize frequent offenders? I feel that clear and explicit concent would be required in such a scenario.
I would disagree with that interpretation.
Generally the more sensitive the data and the more invasive the activity the more robust consent is required.
So just posting a notice and relying on implied consent wouldn't meet the meaningful consent threshold to post photos publicly or feed into an AI database.
David, a slightly different tack: The company could also ban/invoke trespass on the person as well as or instead of posting their name or image, now does the trespass notification need to be reasonable in any sense or can it just be the result of random whimsy as it were by the owner or authorized agent?