Bunnings Defends Use of Facial Recognition Tech

Bunnings has defended its use of facial recognition technology, stating it was necessary to address rising incidents of violent and organised retail crime.
Updated on

Critics, however, argue that the retailer breached privacy laws by failing to obtain proper customer consent.

In response to increased theft and aggression, Bunnings implemented facial recognition technology between 2018 and 2021 in selected stores across New South Wales and Victoria. The chain, which is owned by Wesfarmers, is now contesting a ruling from the Australian Privacy Commissioner that found the use of the technology unlawful due to insufficient informed consent from customers.

Bunnings said the decision to introduce the system followed the failure of other measures such as CCTV, security staff and anti-ram barriers in deterring criminal activity. The retailer noted that its stores differ from typical retail outlets, as they stock potentially dangerous tools and experience frequent theft and threatening behaviour. Store managers reportedly observed improved staff safety and a drop in incidents during the facial recognition trial.

Bunnings’ former head of security, a former police officer, stated that while the technology could not prevent crimes involving offenders who were masked or armed, it helped to identify repeat offenders after incidents occurred. He admitted there was no formally documented risk assessment and acknowledged concerns about racial profiling but said human review was part of the process.

Under Australian privacy law, organisations must show that collecting sensitive personal data is necessary before they can disregard consent. The Privacy Commissioner claimed that in 2018 no other retailers were using facial recognition technology and that Bunnings had not demonstrated a unique need for it. The hearing also examined whether less intrusive crime prevention tools could have been used instead.

The tribunal will need to consider complex arguments about how facial recognition technology is defined and whether consent is required. Bunnings has argued that it did not collect biometric data in the traditional sense but instead generated faceprints from video footage. The tribunal will assess whether this distinction is legally meaningful. Meanwhile, Bunnings has paused its use of the technology while awaiting the decision.

Sources

Updated on

Our Daily Newsletter

Everything you need to know across Australian business, global and company news in a 2-minute read.