There's no way they're not insured against theft.
My guess is they see a business opportunity in constructing the data asset. Australian privacy legislation doesn't allow the collection of data for one purpose to be used for a second purpose, so very few businesses have deployed facial recognition. To my best knowledge, the few named in Choice's article are the first movers wrt this tech in the retail sector in Australia, so they're seeking a first mover advantage.
Converting people into data asset without their knowledge and consent is not legal here and that's before we unpack the morality of it. Curtailing agency etc etc failing in civil inattentiveness etc i could go on and on. Dismantling of trust is another. Then there's the unreliability of the technology in the mix.
On a personal level it's an inconvenience because I'll have to use a different hardware store and Bunnings have already put most of them out of business, so it'll be a long drive.
Tax for failing to talk about chickens.
View attachment 3155169