Re: Dumb argument
I'm privacy-minded, but I have trouble labeling the behavior (as described) as collecting anything. If I'm at the beach, looking for a particular kind of rock, I'm going to pick up a lot of rocks, examine them, and toss them away unless the rock is the one that I want. Did I "collect" all of the rocks I discarded because I held them briefly? I don't think so. I only "collected" the ones that I decided to keep.
The store has a valid use case - keeping persons banned from the store from entering the store, or at least detecting when they have entered so as to be able to intercept them and escort them back out. Is the argument that the banned people need to be warned before their information is "collected" for the purpose of enforcing the ban? Do the banned people's right not to have their data collected supersede the store's right to enforce the ban?
The main risk to the general public here that I see is false positives - people who haven't been banned from the store being incorrectly identified as being banned. Their data will be "collected", and they will face either an immediate action from store personnel intercepting them and escorting them out, or a delayed action from a claim that they violated their ban in some legal proceeding. I would focus on how strong the protections are in the system for people who are incorrectly identified as having been banned. Is their "collected" information quickly and thoroughly deleted completely from the system once it is recognized that it was a false positive or (better yet) if it can not be proven within a short period of time that it was a correct identification?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
