I use the Amazon, not the online retailer, the rain forest.

I doubt they would implement thing on every vending machine. They can still derive some useful analytic data from a smaller sample size

I have in other sections of this thread. I don't want to copy and paste but I'm happy to answer any specific questions.

You pretend to care about consent and privacy and then mention my daughter by name here. You'll notice I share photos and details about my daughter from accounts on servers I control. There is an implicit agreement in the fediverse to respect people's privacy. I obviously don't rely on that implicit agreement because some people do unethical things as demonstrated in your post. I protect my daughter from legitimate online privacy and security threats, I don't play privacy and security theatre.

This vending machine is taking biometrics off of everyone who walks past

You have no evidence of this and there is no mention of this in the article. This also doesn't make any sense from an implementation perspective.

GDPR doesn’t apply in Canada unless you are trying to operate business in Europe.

You're correct that GDPR doesn't apply in Canada, it's just that GDPR is usually the strictest compliance so it's usual for companies to meet that compliance as a minimum.

Compliance only matters if you can’t afford a fine.

GDPR fines can be tied to global revenue.

When your beliefs don't align with the facts, consider changing your beliefs instead of doubling down on your opinions, making things up, and doing unethical things. Please try better.

This type of analysis is cheap nowadays. You could easily fit a model to extract demographics from an image on a Jetson Nano (basically a Raspberry Pi with a GPU). Models have gotten more efficient while hardware has also gotten cheaper.

Marketing is often targeted, especially online (which is a huge privacy issue). I would guess they are using the data from these vending machines to measure the success of their marketing campaigns.

Arguing that I have no concept of digital privacy because I choose to share my name and face is an ignorant statement and demonstrates how little you understand the concept of online privacy. For context, I work in tech in Canada, I deal with GDPR and other compliances. I understand the technology, the risks, and the attack vectors. These vending machines are not a serious threat to individuals privacy. Facebook, Google, Amazon, are serious threats. Focus your energy on the actual risks instead of making uninformed comments.

Study history. The chance of dying violently is the lowest in history. And evil people have always been in charge.

Are you sure?

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Unless there is some evidence of corruption within Health Canada I believe that the scientists are working independently.

You must be aware of the way lobbying works.

Lobbying is very well regulate in Canada, as it should be. In Canada, we have the lobbying act which has broader definitions of lobbyists than the US. Every interactions including details between a lobbyist and a politician is reported to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. You can request access to this data.

Again, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Canada has well established and trustworthy institutions. We are lucky enough to live in a country where most people can't name a single Supreme Court justice. This isn't the US, we have our own problems to solve, stop importing problems from down south.

I'm not pro pesticides. I'm pro environment and this is a complex situation where we should use systems thinking. Pesticides increase crop yields which means less land needs to be used for agriculture. Less land used for agriculture means less deforestation which mitigates climate change. There is obviously a balance here, too many pesticides will have negative affects on the local environment and humans but too few pesticides will also have negative affects on the environment (and by proxy humans). Determining an accurate safe maximum residue limit helps farmers safely maximize crop yields. The dose makes the poison is the basic principle of toxicology. These limits aren't being determined by politicians or companies, they're being determined by Health Canada. It is difficult to be a corrupt scientist in Health Canada so I don't believe the scientists involved in this system will have perverse incentives. I'm not pro pesticides, I'm pro environment.

cc: /u/cyborganism@lemmy.ca

Don't assume, test the hypothesis. Why are you so against using the scientific method?

I'm honestly pretty shocked at how anti science this thread is. Wanting proof that something is safe or unsafe shouldn't be a controversial position.

If it's dangerous then obviously stop doing it. But use science to test your hypothesis