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.
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
Personally I am very happy with all the cameras everywhere. It is so good that police can access these and speed up resolving crimes. How often do we see them request anyone with video of a certain area contact them. Just think it could be your children who may have gone missing and that is the small piece of the puzzle that gets them back alive
 
  • Love
Reactions: deni67
Seems like some people have got nothing better to do than worry about this non story.🙄

How many times are people filmed in a day just walking around and going into shops that also have cameras?

As they have already said "the electronic data of the vast majority of people was processed and deleted in 0.00417 seconds".

Hasn't anyone got CCTV on their own property? I've got 2 cameras on the front of my house with motion tracking. Films everyone, including cars, that go past every day.
 
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???
Well said!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylittletibbies
Most of those questions were covered on last night's news.
Google it. Are you really so important that Bunnings would want to store your photo.

I didn't think I was arguing, just asking a question that you don't seem prepared to answer. No worries.
I don't usually look for factual information in movies. I've read the book, it's a novel not a documentary.I hardly think Bunnings is a repressive regime, nor do I think I have lost my identity despite the hundreds of times I've been in there.
Luckily I don't frequent the establishment..... being part of the Woolies Conglomerate. I don't shop at any of the businesses associated with Woollies.
The same applies to Coles.....
 
Is Bunnings accepting that every private home should have 24/7 cameras so that any domestic assault could be recorded? Is Bunnings accepting that every transaction is recorded versus what is shown on the item or shelf as I often have found that the price charged for an item is not what was shown on the shelve and then produce a photo to show that indeed I am overcharged at the check out versus the price shown at the shelf? The nonsense of recording customers because they might be violent or steal implies an insult upon honest and peaceful customers. I used to be a very frequent customer at Bunnings, but then it started to lock me out because of the unconstitutional MANDATES and well I now seldom go to Bunnings, as it simply no longer appears to me the family kind of business it once was. My (now Late) wife didn’t like to go to Bunnings when she discovered they were taking images of her face. As she made clear she is not a criminal and if Bunnings were pretending she could be a criminal well she simply would no longer go there. As for stealing, I was well aware how staff of Bunnings knew how to get expensive items for themselves by removing a small part and then claiming it was rubbish! Neither facial recognition or exist supervision stop this kind of stealing! In my view it is lack of proper management. As for harming staff, well Bunnings was as I understand it at the forefront to push the mass murder, crimes against humanity “covid scam” unconstitutional MANDATE. So much for protecting staff members using facial recognition when it harmed its own staff members by insisting they get the falsely claimed covid-19 vaccine which the courts already decided never was a vaccine but a “gene therapy”. Ample of Bunnings staff made known how they ended up being harmed and the facial recognition obviously didn’t prevent this when Bunning itself as I view it was the terrorist against its own staff!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: freedy50 and deni67
As they have already said "the electronic data of the vast majority of people was processed and deleted in 0.00417 seconds".
I call this out as absolute bullshit. Did they arrive at this figure using a random number generator or pull it out of their arse?

The shutter speed of most store security cameras run at 0.001 of a second in the brightest of environments, dropping to 0.033 of a second for dimly lit situations. Add the analysis of the image by searching a database and eliminating the good from the bad apples adds more time and then more time with the actual image deletion. That's if the deletion actually occurs!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DLHM
Luckily I don't frequent the establishment..... being part of the Woolies Conglomerate. I don't shop at any of the businesses associated with Woollies.
The same applies to Coles.....
Actually, Bunnings is a part of the Wesfarmers decrepit monolith, renowned for underpaying staff at their numerous subsidiaries. Never have been or is a part of Woolworths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DLHM and IAN3005
Is Bunnings accepting that every private home should have 24/7 cameras so that any domestic assault could be recorded? Is Bunnings accepting that every transaction is recorded versus what is shown on the item or shelf as I often have found that the price charged for an item is not what was shown on the shelve and then produce a photo to show that indeed I am overcharged at the check out versus the price shown at the shelf? The nonsense of recording customers because they might be violent or steal implies an insult upon honest and peaceful customers. I used to be a very frequent customer at Bunnings, but then it started to lock me out because of the unconstitutional MANDATES and well I now seldom go to Bunnings, as it simply no longer appears to me the family kind of business it once was. My (now Late) wife didn’t like to go to Bunnings when she discovered they were taking images of her face. As she made clear she is not a criminal and if Bunnings were pretending she could be a criminal well she simply would no longer go there. As for stealing, I was well aware how staff of Bunnings knew how to get expensive items for themselves by removing a small part and then claiming it was rubbish! Neither facial recognition or exist supervision stop this kind of stealing! In my view it is lack of proper management. As for harming staff, well Bunnings was as I understand it at the forefront to push the mass murder, crimes against humanity “covid scam” unconstitutional MANDATE. So much for protecting staff members using facial recognition when it harmed its own staff members by insisting they get the falsely claimed covid-19 vaccine which the courts already decided never was a vaccine but a “gene therapy”. Ample of Bunnings staff made known how they ended up being harmed and the facial recognition obviously didn’t prevent this when Bunning itself as I view it was the terrorist against its own staff!
After that convoluted rave I don't think Bunnings will miss you.
How did an article about Bunnings security end up being another COVID conspiracy for heaven's sake.
If you get charged more at the checkout than the article was marked on the shelf they will refund the difference.
As far as cameras in all homes is concerned maybe a lot fewer women may suffer from domestic violence, so perhaps not a bad idea.
It is beyond me why people feel they are being thought of as a thief, unless you have a guilty conscience why would you think that.
Millions of people, all over Australia, go to Bunnings every day without a care.
Why such a drama, instead of blaming Bunnings try
blaming the ferals in our society who make these actions necessary.
 
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!
Agree, but I'm betting Woolies, Coles etc are already doing it too, just haven't been caught! The video footage of all the attacks on Bunnings workers & customers highlights that something needs to be done & thus why they've claimed to be doing it. Not sure what the answer is, but everyone has the right to feel safe going to work or going shopping!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylittletibbies
Is Bunnings accepting that every private home should have 24/7 cameras so that any domestic assault could be recorded? Is Bunnings accepting that every transaction is recorded versus what is shown on the item or shelf as I often have found that the price charged for an item is not what was shown on the shelve and then produce a photo to show that indeed I am overcharged at the check out versus the price shown at the shelf? The nonsense of recording customers because they might be violent or steal implies an insult upon honest and peaceful customers. I used to be a very frequent customer at Bunnings, but then it started to lock me out because of the unconstitutional MANDATES and well I now seldom go to Bunnings, as it simply no longer appears to me the family kind of business it once was. My (now Late) wife didn’t like to go to Bunnings when she discovered they were taking images of her face. As she made clear she is not a criminal and if Bunnings were pretending she could be a criminal well she simply would no longer go there. As for stealing, I was well aware how staff of Bunnings knew how to get expensive items for themselves by removing a small part and then claiming it was rubbish! Neither facial recognition or exist supervision stop this kind of stealing! In my view it is lack of proper management. As for harming staff, well Bunnings was as I understand it at the forefront to push the mass murder, crimes against humanity “covid scam” unconstitutional MANDATE. So much for protecting staff members using facial recognition when it harmed its own staff members by insisting they get the falsely claimed covid-19 vaccine which the courts already decided never was a vaccine but a “gene therapy”. Ample of Bunnings staff made known how they ended up being harmed and the facial recognition obviously didn’t prevent this when Bunning itself as I view it was the terrorist against its own staff!
You would be the first one to jump up and down if your late wife had been attacked at the entrance, you'd want photographic proof of that!

As for Covid being brought into your post, how ridiculous, just another anti vaxxer nutter!
 
Agree, but I'm betting Woolies, Coles etc are already doing it too, just haven't been caught! The video footage of all the attacks on Bunnings workers & customers highlights that something needs to be done & thus why they've claimed to be doing it. Not sure what the answer is, but everyone has the right to feel safe going to work or going shopping!
Woolworths and Coles have had CCTV cameras at their entrance's and all through their stores for years. In fact the minute you get out of your car at a major shopping center you are on camera, plus while walking through passing all of the shops you are on camera. You're even filmed at the self serve!
 
Last edited:
Bigbtother is with us and doing fine..... they say the easiest way to introduce something the people DON'T want is to introduce change subtly and too small to notice until it is upon them in full force....
 
Bigbtother is with us and doing fine..... they say the easiest way to introduce something the people DON'T want is to introduce change subtly and too small to notice until it is upon them in full force....
How true and it's happening bit by bit but no-one can see it
 

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×