“Only because of that official investigation did Canadians learn that ‘over 5 million nonconsenting Canadians’ were scanned into Cadillac Fairview’s database”. Wow.
This Wired article is contradictory. The spokesperson says:
“an individual person cannot be identified using the technology in the machines. The technology acts as a motion sensor that detects faces, so the machine knows when to activate the purchasing interface”
I suppose it’s possible that a sloppy developer would name an executable Invenda.Vending.FacialRecognitionApp.exe which merely senses the presence of a face. But it seems like a baldfaced lie when you consider that:
“Invenda sales brochures that promised ‘the machines are capable of sending estimated ages and genders’ of every person who used the machines—without ever requesting consent.”
Boycott Mars
I already boycott Mars because they are a GMA member and they spent ~$500k lobbying against #GMO labeling – and they have been blackballed for using child slave labor – and Mars supports Russia. This is another good reason to #boycottMars.
Update
Apparently a LemmyBug replaced the article URL with a picture URL. The article is here:
https://www.wired.com/story/facial-recognition-vending-machine-error-investigation/
The vending machine pic is here:
https://infosec.pub/pictrs/image/2041d717-7cd7-4393-94f3-96aa87817aa7.jpeg
You know…I’m starting to get the sense that maybe the whole chocolate industry is not as fun and wholesome as the commercials would have me believe.
I thought too but then I watched Wonka.
Watch the original. It’s full of OSHA violations.
But the green M&M is so hot
I already boycott Mars because they are a GMA member
and they spent ~$500k lobbying against #GMO labeling
The other stuff I can understand, but what is the issue with this? GMOs are perfectly safe to eat.
Is this gross, and do they need stopping? Of course.
Is boycotting mars going to make even the slightest difference? Not in a million years.Not only does mars probably own more companies than you even realise, including many of the alternatives you’re buying thinking you’re avoiding them, but even the products you do buy that are coming from a different company altogether, suffer from the exact same background problems (exploitation, oppression, unsustainability, lobbying).
There is good reason for the saying “no ethical consumption under capitalism”, and the answer isn’t making bare minimum and counterproductive gestures like trying to find some ethical unicorn of a company, it’s to abolish capitalism because it requires and encourages all of the unethical practices you’re looking to avoid, in order to exist.
Is boycotting mars going to make even the slightest difference? Not in a million years.
Claiming boycotts don’t work is as good as claiming voting doesn’t work. It works in numbers.
Not only does mars probably own more companies than you even realise, including many of the alternatives you’re buying thinking you’re avoiding them,
Have a look at this infographic:
I have been boycotting everything in that graphic except “Associated British Foods plc” for the past 15 years because I pay attention and I have collected copious dirt on those companies. They are rotten to the core. I could probably find dirt on ABF if I searched for it specifically, but they are likely the lesser of evils and patronizing the lesser of evils is what ethical consumers do.
but even the products you do buy that are coming from a different company altogether, suffer from the exact same background problems (exploitation, oppression, unsustainability, lobbying).
This is the classic “they’re all evil” excuse for not doing your duty as an ethical consumer in favor of putting price and value above ethics in the interest of № 1. Corpations are not equals in the slightest. If you do a bit of research, you find that the smaller companies are much less frequently involved in wrongdoing. I keep a list of the scandals of these companies and it’s clear which ones do the lion’s share of harm.
There is good reason for the saying “no ethical consumption under capitalism”,
From that article:
“It is now 2018. People have “gone green”, eaten vegan, shopped “fair-trade”, and recycled for years now. Yet the atrocities that spurned the ethical consumption movement continue unabated. ”
Yikes. That author does not know what was abated because he only looks around at what he sees now. So because there are still problems, Olive Pape concludes “boycotting doesn’t work”, instead of realizing that boycotting works in numbers.
I boycott the worst of the worst with no expectation that my drop in the ocean makes a significant difference (just like my drop in the ocean vote makes no significant difference in an election). I do it to ensure that I am not part of the problem.
Stop being a part of the problem and favor the lesser of evils in the marketplace instead of taking the best deal that benefits you personally.
it’s to abolish capitalism because it requires and encourages all of the unethical practices you’re looking to avoid, in order to exist.
That kind of unhinged stance may be accurate, but we don’t live in an abolished capitalism world. Abolition of capitalism is a separate action entirely that’s not mutually exclusive to ethical consumption. You can dream about anarchy all you want but those dreams are actually not “going to make even the slightest difference… Not in a million years.” So in the meantime, please consume ethically.
I really appreciate this response. The person you responded to is a mental sloth. “They’re all bad” is absolutely the mentally laziest shit there is
Lmao, voting doesn’t work. If it did, they wouldn’t let you do it.
It’s pretty clear from your entire reply that you are far too invested in the status quo to ever imagine life outside of it. I can’t help you with that, and I’m not going to waste my Sunday trying.
Good luck with your boycotts lol.
And yet instead of getting Trump again in 2020, voters chose differently. It was reallllly hard to find that example though, since it was 200 years ago and simply never happens /s
While what your saying is fundamentally true, it is worth noting that companies do notice declines in sales even very slight ones, and while there isn’t ethical consumption there is certainly still a wide range of how unethical companies are. Just cause none are great doesn’t mean they are all equally bad.
It is also worth noting that mass voting with dollars is one of the most effective peaceful tools currently available in a capitalist system to drive change (for non essential/non monopolized goods). Things like fair trade chocolate and sustainable packaging types exist because consumer demand for them is real, and if enough consumers demand and change spending habits for fair wage practices and bare minimum corporate ethics standards it will start to happen too.
Obviously this is all easier with more coordination among the consumers but even without it, we see companies change their practices due to consumer backlash that hits sales now. This is more effective than you may be giving it credit for, even if not as much as we would like
You go ahead and keep playing within the rules that capitalism has set for you, rather than realise that it is designed to withstand all your futile little attempts and is only getting worse, see how well that works out for you…
Look guy I want to tear the thing down as much as you, but until that gets started this is what I got. In order to be successful in either will require some better commraderie than the tone you seem to have here
By your own logic, perhaps the Glorious Revolution you dream of is merely an outlet capitalists created to keep you participating while you sit waiting for a revolution that never comes.
Or perhaps it isn’t a conspiracy at all. Capitalism isn’t a cabal or a conspiracy. ANY approach we choose is prone to corruption if we aren’t engaged. Capitalism, communism, socialism, and anarchy all require diligence and accountability.
The current state of the world is a direct result of our collective laziness. THEY (the infamous other) aren’t to blame, WE are.
I mean great fuckin point. Perfect and better need to have a cage match because they’re dyed in the wool enemies
BUT MNMNMMMNMNMNMNMMMMMMMNNMNMMNMs want yo face, bitch. How DARE you deny them yo face?!?! DEY WANTS YO FACE.
If they want my face that bad they should at least give me a free M&M for it. They need to add a button “push this for a free M&M if you consent to giving us your face”.
The way to protest this: bring a sharpie marker and mark all the black spots in the frame. Also any black screw holes. Anywhere a camera can be. Let them become frustrated at maintaince costs until finally they give up on putting hidden cameras in places.
The best part is if a machine doesn’t have hidden cameras, this will not cause any maintenance issues, so lower upkeep. Only the shitty hidden camera machines will experience problems.
I guess the rub is that a light sensor which determines how bright to make the LCD is probably indistinguishable from a CCD. If that is darkened then it would darken the screen potentially on machines with no CCD. Although you could test it by covering the spot briefly to see if the screen dims.
You could just use the camera as a light sensor.
Ah, right… so how can @ChicoSuave@lemmy.world’s team of activists limit their destruction to the camera functionality? I wonder if a laser could perhaps burn the CCD enough to ruin image capture but not to the extent that light sensing fails.
I guess the more practical attack would be to superglue a piece of transparent diffusing film over it. Light would still get through but it would just be a blur. Diffusing film can be harvested from LCD screens we often see in dumpsters lately. Or even just that milky type of Scotch tape. Along the same lines, a scribe could be used to scratch up the plastic sheet that protects the CCD.
All of those require more materials than a simple pocket marker. We travel light and innocuous.
Right but the marker would cause problems for non-intrusive vending machines which only use a light sensor to set the display intensity. Along the lines of that simplicity, a thin smudge of chapstick would do well… simple and lightweight. Light could enter but not an image.
