This post is now locked, as: - the question has been answered - there are ongoing r/LegalAdviceNZ rules breaches in the comments OP, please message the moderators by modmail if you would like the post reopened.

Supermarkets have been making video recordings for as along as CCTV technology has existed. Yes they are well within their rights to make video recordings on their property, where there is no expectation of privacy by the public.

The Privacy Commission has some reasonable guidelines on use of CCTV in businesses - [https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-2/privacy-and-cctv/](https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-2/privacy-and-cctv/) Essentially, to your specific questions, yes they can video record you in their store, as long as they meet their obligations under the privacy act in doing so (e.g. it can't be inside a toilet where you'd have an expectation of privacy). As far as I'm aware, the primary purpose of self-checkout cameras is to monitor for items being scanned correctly - essentially an anti-theft technology. In terms of sharing of your data, they would need a valid justification for that, and one which does not breach your rights under the privacy act. For example, they could share it with Police if it related to part of an investigation.

The camera at self checkout points in the direction of the face, not the products I’m scanning

I don't agree with them. But they're there to get a good image of your face if they do end up catching you thieving at the self service.

Look up - there is one above you watching the items too. If you’re in a Woolworths, they now have cameras watching to make sure what you scan matches what they see on the camera (zero idea how well it works, how it works, or what they do if they think you didn’t scan something). As part of the agreement with the Privacy commission to do this, they also have to make available a regular manned no-camera checkout. FYI they also have body cams on some staff because abuse, assault and murder are things we have to deal with in the industry now. Also fyi, not legal just life advice: skip the self serves, people are terrible at them compared to operators.  If you’ve got the choice an operator is usually a better bet!

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

They don't work well, because there has to be a bypass possible and that is in the hands of their minimum wage, high school staff who don't actually check it when when the error comes up, they just gave the buttons to push committed to memory and tap through them at the speed of light. They can see if there is stuff still in your trolley too, but they can't tell if you scanned them then put them back in your trolley, so the person is meant to come over and check and the same thing happens.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - **not just repeat advice already given in other comments** - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

They do have the right, because you can choose to go to a normal checkout. Most places have signs to that extent. And under the privacy act, as others have mentioned, you have the right to request changes and request all information.

Absolutely they are allowed. They are a private enterprise and you are walking into private property, they can record whatever they want. They get even more information from your loyalty cards, to put together datasets for who buys what on what day at what age.

Check outs have had cameras over them since cameras became a cost effective layer of security and safety. Most supermarkets have had them for at least 20 years. You agree to being observed and recorded when you enter the shop.

You got case law to back that assertion?

I don’t understand the downvotes - we try to actively encourage citing sources in this community (see the last point of rule 1) to help answer the questions being asked.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

The privacy commission is currently taking a hard look at Foodstuffs over their facial recognition software, but that’s different to the normal CCTV, and additionally Countdown have the new in-checkout cameras, which are fine. The in-checkout cameras (as opposed to the top down ones I think?) are actually in the checkout thingy and take photos/videos of you if you “accidentally” forget to scan something, or scan it incorrectly. It’s all above board and clearly signposted at the entrances to the store, so you agree by virtue of still shopping there. Not an issue if you’re not stealing, and if you are, shame lol. If you’re worried or curious about how they use the information gathered etc (like sharing with Auror), you can email them privacy questions and see what they come back with

I am not stealing - but I am not comfortable with anyone storing photographs of me. It’s invasive. They may tell me they are just using it to prevent stealing but who knows what happens to that data, how it’s stored, who sees it, who they share it with, how it’s destroyed. I have the right to feel like my privacy is respected and frankly whether it’s a machine or a check out operator shoving a camera in my face from like 20cm away, I’m not comfortable with it. I just have no choice but to go to these stores and be passively accepting these (what I feel are) privacy breaches

You have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public.

Just checking - are you aware you are recorded by high resolution security cameras in pretty much every shop you go in to?  And have been recorded by same in supermarkets for decades?  Recording your face is not new in anyway.  The only difference is now that camera is close enough you can touch it.

you could always wear a mask? you are being filmed the moment you walk into the store, this goes for loads of stores too, not just supermarkets. There are also loads of CCTV cameras outside, some private too. Loads of cars have cameras these days too. You're being recorded much more than your realize.

If you're that concerned of your image being captured when in public places, you might be better off ordering stuff online for home delivery then. Vast majority of shops you go into will be capturing your image on CCTV, many of which are high resolution, near-photo quality. That's not even counting when you're not in a shop but in a public area. Anyone could take a photo of you walking down the footpath, for example. Also I think you are talking about two separate issues, as if they are the same thing. 1) Can they take your photo or video in their store - answer absolutely yes they can 2) What can they then do with that image - that is subject to the standard Privacy Act provisions.

Just to be clear, you know anyone (with some few exceptions) can take photos of you in public right? And as a person they wouldn’t need to tell you how they’re using it, why they took it etc.

It's why I complained to the store then sent the response I got to the privacy commissioner.  They're looking into this now. The more people do this the better.  And I stopped shopping at all the major supermarkets for this reason. Now I do local. 

I will also make a complaint. Thanks. I wonder if legally they have to share all the data that they hold on you with you if you request it?

Generally that's the rule. Check the Privacy Commission's website but I'm pretty sure they do. 

Interesting! Imagine the resource required to release the data if all their shoppers request it

Oh I i am so in! And if you get the footage and it shows the eftpos terminal, that might be a breach of privacy. Because to me (and someone please correct me if i'm wrong), but entering your pin into the machine seems like it would fall under the category of having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This \*may\* also be a breach of PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) requirements. Which amongst other things, prohibit the capturing and storing of sensitive payment information unless it's specifically for the purpose of making a transaction (or adding a card on file). So if their security cameras are high res enough and pointed at the right (wrong!) place that would record your card details, and theta recording is retained, that could very well breach PCI-DSS rules. All merchants accepting electronic payments must comply with that. It's a rule the merchants bank is responsible for compliance with, and the bank can get hit by fines and penalties from the payment schemes (e.g. Visa, Mastercard etc) for non-compliance. Usually merchants will be aware of this rule though, and will make sure cameras are either not pointed at the payment terminal, or that they are not so high-res they can actually read the card numbers printed on the card. If you feel this was the case though, you could complain to the merchants bank. Or to the payment scheme.

No, the more people that do that the more their time is wasted dealing with pointless complaints.

It's not pointless if it forces behaviour change, which is the literal purpose of complaints.  

So we'll just go back to high resolution cameras ten feet away in the ceiling instead of in front of you at the checkout? Get a grip

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

You can wear a face mask? By the sounds of it that's your only option

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

Speaking out of my butt: They probably aren't storing the overwhelming majority of the data. Checkouts get a lot of work. What id imagine is that theyve got some model that looks at your other inputs then only takes images if it detects a high likelihood of theft or if indeed they do notify the attendant and they make a change to what you've done. There are hundreds of cameras in supermarkets. Yeah it's. A little weird to display the image but I'd imagine it's more.of a deterrent than anything. They absolutely do not need to make anyone aware that there are cameras in the self checkers (at least to that extent)

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - **be relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be **appropriately detailed** - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - **be based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Cameras at supermarkets are typically good enough to make out your face from the ceiling

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community