Is Bunnings secretly spying on you? Facial recognition scandal exposes privacy breach!

In an age where technology is advancing at a breakneck pace, the line between security and privacy often becomes blurred.

This has been highlighted by a recent ruling that one of Australia's most frequented retailers has been found to breach privacy laws through the use of one specific security feature.

The Privacy Commissioner has made a stand, but the company is not backing down without a fight.


The controversy began when it was discovered that Bunnings had implemented facial recognition technology in at least 62 of its stores across Victoria and New South Wales.

Between November 2018 and November 2021, the faces of hundreds of thousands of shoppers were captured by CCTV cameras.

This has raised significant concerns, as a person's face is considered sensitive information under the Privacy Act.


467407348_589963630213559_1884625658184388842_n.jpg
The Privacy Commissioner found Bunnings in breach of the Privacy Act for using facial recognition technology. Credit: Facebook / Freedom Media WA


Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind announced that Bunnings had collected individuals' sensitive information without consent, failed to notify individuals that their personal information was being collected, and did not include required information in its privacy policy.

These actions were deemed to be in breach of the Privacy Act, prompting Bunnings to temporarily halt the use of the cameras during the investigation.


However, Bunnings has stated its intention to challenge the findings at the Administrative Review Tribunal.

‘The Commissioner acknowledged that (facial recognition technology) had the potential to protect against serious issues, such as crime and violent behaviour,’ a Bunnings spokesperson said in a statement.

‘This was the very reason Bunnings used the technology.’

‘Unless matched against a specific database of people known to, or banned from stores for abusive, violent behaviour or criminal conduct, the electronic data of the vast majority of people was processed and deleted in 0.00417 seconds—less than the blink of an eye,’ they added.

‘We believe that customer privacy was not at risk. The electronic data was never used for marketing purposes or to track customer behaviour.’

The retailer states that abuse, threats, and assaults against retail staff are increasing across the sector, and these statistics fail to capture the true impact of such incidents on employees.

‘Everyone deserves to feel safe at work. No one should have to come to work and face verbal abuse, threats, physical violence or have weapons pulled on them,’ the company said in another statement.


The Privacy Commissioner acknowledged that Bunnings may have had good intentions with the use of cameras.

‘However, just because a technology may be helpful or convenient, does not mean its use is justifiable,’ Ms Kind explained.

‘In this instance, deploying facial recognition technology was the most intrusive option, disproportionately interfering with the privacy of everyone who entered its stores, not just high-risk individuals.’

While facial recognition technology could help prevent crime and violent behaviour, this benefit must be balanced against ‘the impact on privacy rights, as well as our collective values as a society’.

‘Individuals who entered the relevant Bunnings stores at the time would not have been aware that facial recognition technology was in use and especially that their sensitive information was being collected, even if briefly,’ Ms Kind continued.

The Commissioner has mandated that Bunnings must destroy all personal and sensitive information collected after one year.

Additionally, the retailer must cease any practices that infringe on individuals' privacy, including collecting facial images without consent.


A report by consumer group CHOICE triggered the commission's investigation. They disclosed that Kmart, Bunnings, and The Good Guys were employing facial recognition technology.

‘We are very pleased to hear the Information Commissioner has determined that Bunnings has breached the Privacy Act, following its controversial use of facial recognition technology in stores across the country,’ CHOICE Policy Adviser Rafi Alam stated.

‘This is a landmark decision that will prompt all businesses to think carefully about the use of facial recognition in Australia going forward.’

Mr Alam stated that the general public had been ‘shocked’ by the use of the technology in sporting and concert venues, pubs, clubs, and retail stores.

‘While the decision from the (commissioner) is a strong step in the right direction, there is still more to be done. Australia’s current privacy laws are confusing, outdated and difficult to enforce,’ he added.


Bunnings will not face any penalties based on the latest findings.

The Privacy Commissioner’s office stated that its investigation into Kmart’s facial recognition cameras is ‘nearing the finish line’.

The office made inquiries about The Good Guys' use of cameras but decided not to pursue an investigation.


The recent findings on Bunnings' use of facial recognition cameras, which sparked significant privacy concerns, highlight a growing issue in the retail sector.

With the retailer challenging the ruling, this incident raises broader questions about how facial data is handled and protected.

This concern extends beyond just Bunnings, as the legality of gathering and marketing facial data without explicit consent remains a contentious topic.

In fact, it's alarming to learn that anyone can legally collect and sell your facial data without your explicit permission, posing serious privacy implications for everyone.
Key Takeaways
  • Bunnings has been found by the Privacy Commissioner to have breached the Privacy Act through its use of facial recognition technology.
  • The retailer collected sensitive information without consent and failed to properly inform customers, but argued that the data was deleted quickly and not used for marketing or tracking.
  • Bunnings intends to challenge the ruling at the Administrative Review Tribunal, citing the technology’s use in reducing crime and violence in stores.
  • The Privacy Commissioner required Bunnings to destroy all collected personal and sensitive information and cease practices that infringe on individual privacy without consent.
We at the Seniors Discount Club encourage our members to stay informed about their privacy rights and to voice their concerns when they feel those rights may be infringed upon.

What are your thoughts on the use of facial recognition technology in retail stores? Do you feel safer, or do you believe it's an invasion of privacy? Share your opinions with us in the comments below.
 
Sponsored
I was chatting with a friend in her home about my recent holiday in WA where I had hired a car for a month. For the next few days my friend was bombarded with ads for WA holidays and hire cars. Are these precious 'privacy' freaks aware that there are microphones and cameras in their computers and phones, and even in some TVs? I don't care about public cameras, but I do care about privacy in my own home!
I don't have a camera or microphone on my computer, my partner does on his laptop though but it's an easy fix, just stick a band aid or something similar over the top, it stops people spying on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suzanne rose
Take note Woolworths, Coles, Kmart, Big W and other stores who implement such invasive "security" measures such as self serve checkout cameras. You will be next.

You can argue all you like in saying "if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is not the point. It is a question of privacy and the retention of data and its subsequent use by these measures.

Do any of these retailers ask each individual customers for their express permission to record their image? No!

How would you feel if I walked up to you in a shopping centre and took a photo of you without your permission? You wouldn't like it in the least!
If anything happens to a customer there is evidence that can be provided if needed for them too. I have been verbally abused and threatened in a supermarket. I would have been very happy if it was on camera if anything had happened
 
I feel that Bunnings has every right to protect their customers and staff from disruptive behaviour by certain individuals. If they attack staff or customers, it is good to know that they have been caught on camera. I don't see where this action affects honest shoppers. It does try to stop thieving and abuse in it's tracks.
 
I was chatting with a friend in her home about my recent holiday in WA where I had hired a car for a month. For the next few days my friend was bombarded with ads for WA holidays and hire cars. Are these precious 'privacy' freaks aware that there are microphones and cameras in their computers and phones, and even in some TVs? I don't care about public cameras, but I do care about privacy in my own home!
My sister was being bombarded with junk emails and texts. I told her to stop having the internet on the phone. Her answer was : but I do everything on my phone.
I REST MY CASE.
All my private stuff is completed on my p.c. and I don’t have any problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deni67
I am going to the Bunnings Melville store in Perth later this morning. I will observe and take photos of what I deem dodgy, illegal or unethical. If I am challenged, pity the poor shop assistant.

I am just doing to you exactly what you are doing to me! At least I know the basic principles of the Privacy Act 1998, of which I doubt of which the shop assistant has ever heard of.
 
I am going to the Bunnings Melville store in Perth later this morning. I will observe and take photos of what I deem dodgy, illegal or unethical. If I am challenged, pity the poor shop assistant.

I am just doing to you exactly what you are doing to me! At least I know the basic principles of the Privacy Act 1998, of which I doubt of which the shop assistant has ever heard of.
Um, since I’m going with you @Veggiepatch, I may shop in a different aisle if you unleash your anger.
😆
 
"The Commissioner has mandated that Bunnings must destroy all personal and sensitive information collected after one year."

If Bunnings is correct (and truthful) then said data was destroyed in less time than the blink of an eye, rendering the ruling absurd.

Ironically, the Bunnings story followed the #CCTV capture of the passive-aggressive delivery person. Typically, though, no #FacialRecognition was used, which, from past experience, is always a liability when offering footage to the police.

Meanwhile, we already know that every move we make is CCTV-captured, whenever we walk down the street or enter a business.

I'm not much of a villain so I don't fear #BigBrother any more, and if enterprises want to risk their technology by recognising my rather plain face, so be it! And given some of the antisocial behaviours Bunnings released I'd say on balance it's a Good Thing.

My reasoning is simple: if I'm not doing anything dodgy, I have nothing to fear.

However, the ruling does raise other issues, for instance, regarding #DashCam recordings. To what extent will it segue from Facial Recognition to CCTV and Dash Cam? Will residential CCTV be policed in the same way? And is limiting or restricting facial recognition tech going to limit police investigations, and increase risks for the omni-present mythical law-abiding citizen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veggiepatch
I am going to the Bunnings Melville store in Perth later this morning. I will observe and take photos of what I deem dodgy, illegal or unethical. If I am challenged, pity the poor shop assistant.

I am just doing to you exactly what you are doing to me! At least I know the basic principles of the Privacy Act 1998, of which I doubt of which the shop assistant has ever heard of.
Don't blame the shop assistant. If challenged, ask to speak to the manager STAT.

If you take pictures of people's faces, make sure you have the appropriate release forms for them to sign ... 😉
 
Are you sick of hearing the police mantra of "if you have any dashcam or CCTV footage of the incident, contact Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000".

Are the police too lazy to get off their collective fat arses to do the job themselves? By relying on the public? I'm sure that I am not on the payroll of any police force in this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl6164
Don't blame the shop assistant. If challenged, ask to speak to the manager STAT.

If you take pictures of people's faces, make sure you have the appropriate release forms for them to sign ... 😉
"The manager isn't available right now. He is perving at young mums that are now in the store on CCTV...."

In reply to your second paragraph....no. I just say I'm the paparazzi. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: DLHM and BigAl6164
Are you sick of hearing the police mantra of "if you have any dashcam or CCTV footage of the incident, contact Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000".

Are the police too lazy to get off their collective fat arses to do the job themselves? By relying on the public? I'm sure that I am not on the payroll of any police force in this country.
Valid point - though I see the mantra as assisting rather than doing the police work. On the other hand, I'd check my bank accounts to make sure I haven't received any random payments from the constabulary ... 😉
 
"The manager isn't available right now. He is perving at young mums that are now in the store on CCTV...."

In reply to your second paragraph....no. I just say I'm the paparazzi. :ROFLMAO:
Yeah, well, Bunnings is pretty much a suburb of Testosterone City ...

Make sure you don't overheat in your trench coat 🤣
 
Everybody should boycott Bunnings till they change their mind . lt's all about controlling people. and it needs to stop
And where will you go instead, unless you want to pay an arm and a leg.
I shop at Bunnings all the time and don't feel"controlled". How is it controlling me, I go in, I stroll around, I might have a coffee, I buy what I want and I leave. Have been doing the same thing for years
Nothing's happened to me.
Controlled, how???
 
Yeah, well, Bunnings is pretty much a suburb of Testosterone City ...

Make sure you don't overheat in your trench coat 🤣
With an expected maximum temperature of 22 degrees in Perth, a trench coat would be out of the question!

Speaking of trench coats, I was working in a suburban Sydney bottleshop in May 1990. Some old dude came in with a trench coat and went straight to the coolroom. Strange you ask? It was 38 degrees outside!

I pulled him up and he had about 15 cans of KB inside his trench coat! o_O
 

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else

Latest Articles

  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×